Verbose Mafia 2 - Post or Perish (Game Over)

[Seol]

I, for one, would

love

a tequila. I've had a bit of a stressful day. So, yes, Fritzler, I'll join you and have a sit-down, as a nice quite drink is just what I need.

Does anyone have any salt and lemon?

I also agree with Fritz, in that Commodore Amazing is looking

incredibly

scummy to me right now. I'm very much looking forward to lynching him tomorrow.

That will be fun.

[Seol]

We're talking semantic arguments here, but day hasn't started yet. If it had, I would be able to nominate Commodore Amazing. A day which has not yet started, but which will be the next day to occur, is called

"tomorrow"

.

For clarity's sake, I will restate my earlier comment as "I am very much looking forward to lynching Commodore Amazing at the

first possible opportunity

". I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand my intentions.

[Seol]

I have to apologise for my quietness - I was not asleep, but have been suffering from a most bizarre condition, a feeling of...

weightlessness

. It has been almost as if my brain has been disconnected from my body, if you will pardon the somewhat clumsy analogy.

And now we find ourselves trapped in this curious game, and it is time to nominate... well, I was of the opinion yesterday that Commodore Amazing was clearly scum, and it would be churlish of me to back down from my position without being given a good reason to do so.

I am also somehow reminded of my great-great-great-grand-godfather by this "mathcam" figure, which fills me with a particular dread which, though I feel

more

than able to vocalise, I worry what such emphatic terms would do to those of you with a gentler constituution.

At this point I am of the opinion that attempting to co-ordinate our efforts is likely to be a fruitless endeavour, and possibly even counterproductive, as our less respectable colleagues - those we are trying to root out and punish the old-fashioned way - will be fully aware of our machinations and will find it easy to follow our leads. When a group organises itself in unison, the crucial element of individual response - which we are to rely on in discovering our criminals! - is lost in the background hum of sheeplike compliance. Furthermore, any attempts to shepherd this group of sharp, exciting intellects these strategies is something that concerns me - although I am not going to delve into that issue for now.

This is not to say we should not all pull together when the time comes, when an emergent and useful strategy presents itself - but this is not that time. On that basis, I am going to listen, and of course ask questions when they occur to me and respond to those asked of me, but I will follow my own instincts and work on my own terms for the time being.

Nominate: Commodore Amazing, mathcam

[Seol]

Very well, Commodore, if you wish to hear more from me, I find your comment worthy of a response.

You say that if you

pretend

to be suspicious of me, the scum are less likely to try to kill me. What leads you to believe that I was in any danger of being killed, that your affectations would have any bearing on that, and for that matter that you

want

me to remain alive in the first place?

In respect of this charade you wanted us to act out, I think this is probably the time to remind my companions that you have requested this be ignored for the time being. If there's anything I can't stand, it's when people don't pay attention. That's how mistakes are made.

With regards to your comment about my ancestrage, mathcam, I do not think lowly of them, but the character you remind me of was not a blood relative in any case. However, whilst I am respectful of their wisdom and experience, I have long since learned not to assume that my elders are necessarily my betters.

[Seol]

Fiasco, as you quite rightly point out, the nomination phase is nearly over. That is exactly why it is fruitless to nominate those who do

not

already have some nominations, unless I had a compelling reason why the roster of nominated persons should include a specific individual, which I do not. I would like my nominations to have

some

influence - otherwise, why nominate? - and therefore my nominations are best served either to help cement the position of those who already have the most nominations, or those on the fringes of being nominated. We should all be trying to take actions that have consequences, for after all, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

That is why I opted to nominate those who had nominations already. Are my reasons arbitrary? Indeed, they are - at this stage, would it not be more concerning if they had an agenda behind them?

[Seol]

DrippingGoofball, I have to say, we were provided for masks for a

reason

, and I do not believe it is a good idea to be aggressively speculating on each others identities. I would be concerned enough were it not for your continual references to Hitler, which seem bordering on the obsessive.

Let me point out the obvious, if you will, and state that the majority of us have nothing to hide in respect of our identities and nothing to gain from a better understanding of each others'. On that basis, as has been remarked in

many

similar situations through the ages, I would say that by far the most suspicious act so far is your role-fishing.

In fact, I think it is sufficient to earn you a vote.

vote: DrippingGoofball

.

[Seol]

I am disappointed with the way today has resolved, however I suppose I have only myself to blame as I have not been as alert as I either intended or pledged to be. I don't find Turbovolver's behaviour with the "playing the race card" thing suspicious today - yes, it was a lie, however that does

not

automatically make it scummy, and I am casting a sideways glance at thosewho leap to that conclusion to support their argument. The issue here, however, is that given just those two alternatives, it is better to lynch than not to lynch. By my reckoning, we now have sufficient votes for lynch - that said, it never hurts to make sure, hence my vote.

However, I am most dissatisfied with DrippingGoofball - the "defence" of citing her unprompted claim is both inconclusive (I have no reason to believe that the claim is true, nor do I have any reason to believe that the claim is likely to be either innocent or scum) and

irrelevant

in respect of the arguments that I, at least, was voting her for. I am getting an impression that she is working to an agenda here, and that always disturbs me.

So to clarify, my vote is one of pragmatism not idealism, and does not reflect my current feelings at this time.

unvote, vote: Turbovolver

[Seol]

I return to my major suspicion of yesterday - which was that of DrippingGoofball's role-fishing - and note with interest, as CES has already done, that she's at it

again

. Furthermore, she is defending herself in a manner I frankly find suspect, and seems to recently have had some sort of mental breakdown - hardly the beacon of rationality we need in these troubling times. Needless to say she is amongst my nominations, and if her actions are deliberately courting the wrath of our beneficiaries, then I shall be forever predisposed against her.

Although, given the nature of our beneficiaries' wrath, I doubt that my future predispositions are much of a concern to her.

I find it curious that VitaminR considers it so vitally important to be on the lynching block, and am concerned it may be a ploy. My initial instinct was to consider that we should elect him to the block, but not consider him as a lynch candidate, as we are not electing him based on scumminess, but at his own request - and yet I did that without actually considering whether I thought VitaminR worthy of the lynch block in the first place. If that

is

his intention, it is a remarkable proactively defensive play, but I think it is unlikely - suffice it to say that I am cautious of the request, but see little reason not to comply.

There are other possibilities as wel, including many that have not occurred to me. Any time anyone has an agenda I do not understand, whilst I do not consider them automatically scummy, I always feel a need to keep a close eye. Therefore, I shall also nominate VitaminR, on the basis that either he needs us to, or we should.

nominate: DrippingGoofball, VitaminR

[Seol]

DrippingGoofball, you said - and I

quote

- "I was hoping that VitaminR gives us more information as to whether putting him on the lynching block has some benefit or if it's just something he feels compellled to say."

You were talking about a hope to clarify an aspect of VitaminR's role, looking for further information that he has and nobody else does. I would categorise that as role-fishing - not looking for the outing of VitaminR's role

per se

, but looking to out an aspect of it. One does not need every piece for the motif of the jigsaw to become apparent, or at least revealed sufficiently to prove educational.

[Seol]

Your request was one which was looking for further information on VitaminR's role, specifically that of the circumstances of his request to nominate him. Were you requesting him to claim? No, but that is not "role-fishing", it is "requesting a claim". Role-fishing is attempting to

subtly

, rather than directly, glean information about the setup we are facing and our own private information.

I have not accused you of requesting a claim, however I have observed you making a number of comments which attempt to gain information about our situation - your comments yesterday about your postulated list of identities, you comments about the likelihood of an evil Hitler in our midst, and now today your request for elaboration from VitaminR, the latter of which would not be notable were it not for your prior comments - but you

did

make those prior comments, and it contributes towards an observed pattern of suspicious behaviour.

Furthermore, if you suspected that there were forbidden words for VitaminR, and that these words would have the imagined effect, is not asking him to elaborate further just pressure towards exposing him to the possibility of making a fatal mistake? Or was that your intention?

[Seol]

"Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Commodore Amazing!"
"More Commodore Amazing, with less art."

There you go Commodore, you little scumbag you. I hope you appreciate your opportunity to play me like a puppet-master, as such occasions do not arise frequently.

I had also wondered why VitaminR had not self-nominated - and had thought the reason that VitaminR had not nominated himself was that the rules specified you could nominate up to three

other

players, and thus

could

not nominate himself. However, this does not appear to be the case. It does seem odd he would be focused on reaching the lynching block, and not play the part he can in doing that for himself.

[Seol]

I am afraid this is little more than a check-in post, as I do not have time to investigate my suspicions. I am interested in looking closer at the interacitons between MBF and TSS, and between CA and Adele - for now, suffice to say I have seen comments by each which I take exception to, but would like to do background reading to better understand the context to them. I shall make a full post on this subject soon.

Furthermore, my nomination for VitaminR is now unnecessary, as he has plenty to ensure he makes the block, and my nominations can be better used elsewhere. I shall leave my nomination on DG, however, as a statement of intent.

Un-nominate: VitaminR

[Seol]

A quick question for Adele -

I can understand why you might want to use your ability to, effectively, have another speak in your defence. What I fail to understand is why, when you were clearly aware of the strategy of using it to confirm yourself, you chose to do so via the player you trusted

least

. Certainly, I can understand that choosing who to trust at this stage of the game is difficult, but to opt for the one person above all others who seemed most suspicious to you as your chosen "advocate" seems, to put it bluntly, ass-backward.

I've been picking up an odd tone from you - over-justifying and apologetic - and I haven't been sure whether it's your trying too hard to look town, or trying too hard in the face of a big game with big guns and lots of big words. This, however, strikes me as an application of your ability that makes sense from a scum perspective (garnering support for your actions from someone who you attacked, which would hopefully carry more weight, and if the argument wasn't bought, could be used as a basis for attack), but does

not

from a town sense.

I will freely admit I may be missing something here, but I can't see what. Could you please explain the rationale for your nightchoice?

[Seol]

With regards to DG's "restriction", if I am reading correctly, this

only

applies to the first paragraph of her first post of today - which does not account for the behaviour I find suspicious, particularly the cloying sympathy-plays and defeatist attitude she resorted to and the speculation about roles in the game yesterday (prior to her being targetted by Adele). I don't think Adele's ability excuses much of the contentious aspect of DG's behaviour. However, whilst I find DG's behaviour highly suspect, we have something more concrete with Adele, and shy of a

damn

good explanation that is where my vote belongs.

vote: Adele

[Seol]

I confess, I had misread the day, and had attributed a different portion of DrippingGoofball's posts to Adele than what actually applied (I had previously misread the comment about those voting for Turbovolver knowing him to be innocent, as I was reviewing Dripping's posts only and not in context and somehow believed that was DG's first post today). When I realised and found the proper attribution, I was shocked to say the least - I cannot see

any

justification for a pro-town player forcing any other player to say

that

. The link I cannot understand is why Adele would admit to doing so, as all she has achieved by doing so is her undoing.

I was going to ask Loudmouthlee how on earth he got the impression that Adele's role was even remotely investigative, as I can see nothing that would lead to that conclusion (although it is notable that Adele has not confirmed CES' conclusion that she is Cyrano), but in the light of my own misread I do not feel in a position to criticise.

Needless to say, I now view it as practically inconcievable that Adele and DG are in league with each other.

[Seol]

Why do you say Adele was obviously pro-town? She had proven her ability, yes, but had used it in a manner which cast a very dark light on her intentions. I am surprised that, given her behaviour, you could see her to be "obviously pro-town". From my re-read, this conclusion seemed to be based on her claimed role being plausible and her having confirmed her ability, without taking how she used that role (her actual

behaviour

) into account.

I don't know how you saw it: of all the people who spoke after Adele claimed, only you and Fiasco had any faith in her (well, and Pooky, the poor hormonal cuddly toy). I would argue the issue here is not to single out myself and Thok as two who were pushing the lynch (I did not weigh in on the Adele issue

at all

until she had ten votes, for example), but to single out yourself and Fiasco as those who opposed it. Of course, there may well be a very simple explanation as to why you were so sure she was town.

As for LML, I agree that it is a bizarre misconception: what is more bizarre is that he continued to vote Adele whilst

believing she had claimed an investigative role

. I would like some elaboration from LML as to what his rationale was there. Pending that, he shall earn a nomination.

Nominate: DrippingGoofball, LoudmouthLee, Cogito Ergo Sum

[Seol]

Ref: the silent speaker - Of course Cogito Ergo Sum (not Commodore Amazing) was talking about his opinion, what he felt to be true. With an absence of factual evidence one way or the other, all we can talk about is our opinions and perceptions. Feel free to reread my comments as saying "why did you feel she was obviously pro-town" if you wish, I do not see it makes any difference.

Ref: "Satan" - I had already nominated CES prior to this coming to my attention. I would be interested to hear Cogito's explanation for this strange phenomenon.

Ref: Commodore - I am not on your lists, however, I had completed the task you asked of me. Could you explain please? Also, you say you had words forced upon you - from yesterday's experience, it appeared DG was quite limited in terms of what she could say about her words being forced, and yet you could come straight out and disclaim them, robbing them of all possible impact. Were there any restrictions on talking about the forced words? I would also appreciate it if DG could answer that question.

Ref: MBF - You seem very adamant that Satan

could

not be in the game, extrapolating from only a small set of evidence. Are you sure you are not leaping to premature conclusions? Or, to put it another way, at least one of the reasons you cited as to why Satan could not be in the game would also preclude

my

role from being in the game.

Re: LML - Your comments about believing Adele's role to be investigative make no sense. Why would Adele call for DG to back her up? Why on earth would she attack DG early on and rely on her later? I realise that you are saying these inconsistencies were the reason for your vote, but given they render Adele's story so clearly nonsense, did it seriously not occur to you that you might have misunderstood her - particularly given CES' comments about Cyrano de Bergerac?

[Seol]

Ref: Commodore - I am asking specifically about the things you have been

forced

to say, presumably by a third party - not about your own restrictions or comments mad under your own volition. I thought my request was fairly clear there.

Ref: DrippingGoofball - that's role-fishing again. Stop it.

Ref: Lee - I don't buy your partial claim. Adele pointed you to not only CES, but to scrutinize his posts? Either she had noticed the pattern - in which case, why not bring it to our attention herself? - or she was shooting in the dark. Furthermore, just because a known pro-town player spotted a pattern does not necessarily mean that this interpretation is correct. It does look suspicious, yes, but I await CES' response.

Oh, I note CES has responded during my writing of this post. CES, I'm dsure you can recognise that this Satan thing does not reflect well on you at

all

- given that we are working to timescales here, and we have had two days end in a rush, if you can clear yourself it might be wise to do that sooner rather than later?

Back to Lee - I acknowledge that you brought your mistake to our attention - but then I am sure, had you not, someone else would have. However, what I am curious about is the thought process of "oh, she's cryptically claiming to be investigative - wait, no, that doesn't match her behaviour, that can't be right - well, then, I'd better vote her" (not a quote), without the steps of "if she's investigative, we should find out more and be careful here" or "if the claim makes so little sense, maybe I misunderstood and should re-read before voting".

I'm also confused about how you could have believed the role to be investigative anyway, especially after CES' elaboration, however yesterday ended in a blizzard of activity which makes that far more understandable.

[Seol]

So it's

not

the same as what Adele did to DrippingGoofball, where she was forced to quote a particular paragraph and was then limited in hr ability to disclaim it? That's what it

seemed

you were claiming in your first post of the day, when it looked to me you were drawing a parallel between what had happened to you and Adele's ability. If they are not the same, as appears to be the case, then there is far less cause for concern.

As for hearing the details of the restriction, I'll leave that up to your judgment. I don't have any pressing need to hear about it.

[Seol]

Cogito, that is certainly sufficient, at least for now.

As for Adele's behaviour, we shall have to disagree. From the two perspectives:

If Adele were scum and DG were town, then Adele would have good reason to try and get her lynched, and forcing DG to say scummy things would contribute towards that.

If Adele were town, and unsure of DG's alignment, then forcing DG to say such things would contribute towards the lynch of someone who is quite possibly a townie, on the basis of statements she did not make.

As for the claim, I don't like drawing conclusions from name-claims, especially this early on in the game. As for her ability, I saw a confirmed ability - but a scummy one, used scummily.

Therefore, Adele's actions made more sense for scum than for town. I shall be having some words with her after the game...

unnominate: Cogito Ergo Sum

[Seol]

TSS: The reason I was challenging him today is that he is was using pursuit of Adele yesterday as a basis for suspicion, as if her innocence was so clear from the situation that not to come to that conclusion is suspicious in itself. Furthermore, when pretty much the whole town was against her, he chose to single out myself and Thok as those pursuing her. My point was simply that,

given what we knew yesterday

, Adele

was

the correct lynch, and if anything is noteworthy, it is those who

supported

her.

In other words - it is not his support of Adele, but rather his choice of using it as a basis for attack that stirred my ire.

Pooky: You would lynch a claimed mason? Mason is the hardest fake-claim to get away with, so if he is lying then a) he's ballsy as hell and b) he'll be caught. I have a nomination spare since I unnominated CES, and I think you deserve it.

nominate: Pooky

[Seol]

You said you didn't believe him, and found him likely to be scum, and wanted him on the lynching block (as you specifically mentioned that he already had enough votes to get there). Is it a leap to go from there to reading that you were at least prepared to lynch him? Yes, it is a leap, but only a small one.

Why would Adele not have put more damaging words in DG's mouth? Possibly because if it's beyond a certain threshold, it would be obvious they are not DG's words? Possibly because she wanted to keep the opportunity of DG speaking in her defence open? I could speculate further, but I see little point - there are many things a scum

might

do, all we can do is assess the actions people

have

made.

[Seol]

Fiasco, sorry, I didn't mean to overlook your post, I was too busy replying to Pooky.

Firstly, I'm not surprised you don't think Adele was a good lynch yesterday. Pooky and Cogito agree with you, but then again, you all thought that yesterday. All I am trying to do is explain my thought process at the time as to why I thought she was a good lynch. I don't think that "could she have been scummier?" is the correct approach in assessing the words she put into DG's mouth - the correct question should be "was she scummy?". I've already explained the reasons why my answer to that question was "yes".

As I've already said, I am loathe to use nameclaims, or the plausibility thereof, as any sort of assessment of innocence/guilt, so I was not counting that as much of an issue in her favour. As for the reasons other people were voting her, such as the end-of-day bandwagon voting - well, that was not among my reasons for voting her.

On the mason claim - it is dangerous because a)

if

there are any Masons and he is not one of them, he can be counterclaimed without us losing a genuine power role, b) if he names a scum partner for support and

either

of those players die, we get a 2-for-1, and c) if he names a random townie as a partner, he will be called on it. At some point in the next couple of days, we will have to have at least one of his partners come out, but this normally happens pretty organically. As for the possibility of a cult, again see my comments about when a scum partner is named.

And as for my post-restriction - hot damn, you're right. It was an oversight. Too many posts...

[Seol]

Pooky, what I am saying is that it was

my impression

from your post that you were willing to lynch a claimed mason, and furthermore I don't think that that's an unreasonable impression to take from your post.

If you were not interested in lynching him today, then surely that is a better reason not to nominate him than simply noting he will make the block anyway, which (to my mind) clearly implies you want him up there? A point reinforced by your most recent post, where again you stress that the reason you didn't nominate him was that it would make no difference, rather than you don't think he should be there - and even that you would expect to attract suspicion had you not provided that explanation as to why you were not nominating him.

However, seeing as you have clarified that you do

not

want to lynch him today, I will amend my reason for nominating you to continuing to pursue a lead which is, in all probability, a monumental waste of time to pursue at this point, and is likely being used as a means of fishing out a confirmation from another mason. Well, that and your over-reaction to what amounts to little more than a semantic argument.

[Seol]

One thing has just occurred to me. CES, could you please verify that you are

certain

your co-masons are pro-town? This also goes out to the other masons -I am not suggesting you claim, simply that you verify this and bear it in mind.

I have seen far too many instances recently where "mason" does not bring the guarantees that are usually inferred from masonhood. Without such guarantees, we cannot use Cogito's claimed mason status as a reason to trust him implictly - in fact, given recent experiences, it may even be accurate to say that a mason group without the guarantee of innocence is more likely than not to harbour a scum.

MBF: I am not saying Satan

is

among us, just that we should be careful what assumptions we make at this early stage of the game.

[Seol]

Fiasco: I think we are over-analyzing. I still disagree with you, however the lynch has happened now and we should be looking at

today's

activity, not yesterday's. In case you had the wrong impression, I do not find you suspicious for being against Adele's lynch - what I found suspicious in CES was his selective attack on what I consider not only a majority viewpoint but also a justified one.

In respect of Masons, should we start to reach endgame and we have not had any hard evidence to support the claim (ie a dead or investigated Mason), and it is looking possible that they have pulled off a wonderful bluff, then we must make some evidence. It would be somewhat suspicious if all the (claimed) masons are still alive at that point anyway, as if they are town, they form a voting block that is effectively unlynchable - a scum's worst nightmare.

If we are in a situation where our claimed masons being scum would lose us the game, we have to either investigate one or kill one (preferably by vigilante). It is

very

rare that we hit that point.

Oh, and this is Verbose Mafia - no need to apologise for length!

DG: We would not take CES off the block because Satanists could be good guys. If we are to take him off the block, it is because he has claimed Mason, and only because of that.

[Seol]

Pooky: When I said we should talk about "today's activity rather than yesterday's", I meant discussing who to

nominate and lynch

- it felt like we were continuing to argue a lynch that had

already happened

. Fiasco and I had got to the point where, it seemed to me, we had little to add other than repeating ourselves - we had both made our opinions and reasons clear. If you have something new to say on the issue, I'll be happy to answer your questions. Obviously I am not advocating that we disregard previous days!

You now say that your desire to see CES on the lynching block was that you would be interested to see who would vote for him? Furthermore, if that was going to happen anyway,

why state your desire to see him on the block?

Unless, of course, you mean to

encourage

votes for him?

The whole "I was [doing unwise or dangerous activity X] because I wanted to see other people's reactions" excuse is a great catch-all, because it is an easily retconned "justification" for pretty much anything, and the "tactic" ("if you follow me, I will attack you for it") can also be described as "hypocrisy".

Also, my "leap" was not simply equating the desire to see CES on the block with a willingness to lynch - it was the desire to see him on the block

in combination

with your attacks on him. I think that you would have to agree that you were expressing that you wanted CES on the lynching block, you thought him to be lying and a "likely scum", and later that you would expect to be found suspicious had you

not

nominated him given your comments, and you have been accusing CES of inconsistencies in breadcrumbing Napoleon and then linking Napoleon and the Antichrist. Is there anything in there you would like to contest?

As for the "over-reaction", you point out that we are operating to very strict deadlines and therefore you must defend yourself as much as necessary. Firstly, the strict deadlines are exactly why attempting to encourage votes on CES is so dangerous, we simply don't have time to waste on such tactics which rely on foolishly cast votes. Secondly, it is not your defense of your actions that I found suspicious (although it looks more like weaselling out on a technicality than a proper defense to me), but the OMGUS aspect.

LoudmouthLee: I am

very

concerned that you have seemingly "opted out" of discussion, instead repeatedly relying on your "80% confirmed" status. You are

not

cleared, and even if you were, that is not a reason to stop talking.

Tamuz: What is it about my "logical rampage" - a term I coined myself, by the way, in reference to the Invitational - that you find disturbing? I think you'll find it's an absolutely standard part of my technique, and dare I say it, quite an effective one too.

Spamwise: Based my previous encounters with Fritzler, I would say his behaviour is a very strong indicator that he is Fritzler. Unfortunately, I don't think we can take anything about his alignment from his stated enthusiasm to kill.

Fiasco: I agree that DrippingGoofball would be a fine lynch, and could easily support you here. However, I currently have my eye on Pooky.

vote: PookytheMagicalBear

[Seol]

DG: There is a difference between requesting Pooky to claim at this point and your day 1 comments. That difference is that we have only a little time to decide a lynch, Pooky is one of the current top contenders, and he has asserted that he has a "fairly" verifiable claim. If he is indeed a dead lead, then we should establish that early so as not to waste time on him.

As for your comments on LML, that does appear to be a contradiction. My vote is therefore moving to LML, pending a good explanation from him. It will have to be a

damn

good explanation.

Note: I have seen others have beaten me to posting, including LML. That is

not

a damn good explanation. It's a load of bullshit, a clumsy retcon. There is no way that "Adele didn't tell me to look at Dripping Goofball" and "My dear, your name was still referenced" are both true,

especially

when a man as experienced as Lee knows what we do to liars. Vote stays.

CES: The plan to "clear" LML is woefully prone to interpretation. We have all written so much that it would certainly be possible for a creative man to "find" hidden messages where they do not exist - there is no real way to prove that the cryptic message actually came from the lynchee. Furthermore, I have little doubt a capable group of analysts could spot a cryptic message where it

does

exist without requiring the hint. It most certainly

can

backfire on the town.

Why do you believe Adele "should know" about me, but not you or Goofball? In the past, I have consistently left her confused - which leads to a certain prejudice. She said as much herself.

Finally, if you think LML is "probably scum", why do you think he can wait?

Werebear: Just because you can speculate does not make you correct. There are ways of solidly verifying mason claims, and simply because is a Satanist does not make them a murderer. CES is quite correct in pointing out that if the role name goes with the abilities, then the role name reveals much more about his own role - the role name could help the scum ferret out other masons, or reveal any other abilities CES might have. The point is quite simple - if CES is scum,

we will catch him

. Simply because of that, it is highly unlikely that he is scum. I am not advocating

forgetting

about him - we must ensure he is verified at some point - but it is pointless to pursue him now.

Tamuz: You have now cited your reasons to vote me as my "logical rampage" and "over-verbose verbosity". That is my

style

, that is how I conduct my business. Is it anything specific I said, or am I saying things that make you uncomfortable? If so, please specify

what

it is you find uncomfortable - at least then we can understand your reasons.

tss: I'm not sure I understand why you were voting for me. You spent almost the entire post talking about Fiasco, and then made some coments about nominations and voted me. What am I missing?

Pooky: Let me understand your reasons for voting me, please. Firstly, you do not agree with my rationale for thinking Adele was scum yesterday, and secondly you assert I grossly misrepresented your position on CES. That is the impression I have. If I misunderstand, please correct me, as it makes much more sense for me defend myself against what you think than what I think you think.

In summary, I feel no better about Pooky than I did before, but DG's find re: LML is significant and puts him ahead.

unvote, vote: LML

[Seol]

Cogito, if you don't count the plan failing to clear him as backfiring, then what

do

you mean by backfiring? Do you not see the risk of a message being found without LML having received the hint, and would

that

not surely count as backfiring?

What

exactly

are you proposing in terms of the LML confirmation strategy? There is a huge difference between "being cryptic" and "blocks of encoded text", and as I understood the rules, the latter would not be acceptable - I would count the latter as being sufficiently foolproof, though.

Could you also please explain to me why I, specifically,

should

have known Adele was town?

And yes, DG appears to be now an advocate of mine. I believe that's based on the assumption LML is scum, which in turn has a solid basis in Lee's lies.

[Seol]

I believe I've already said that I think the most severe iteration of Cogito's plan is robust (my earlier criticisms were of wolly "post a cryptic message" plans), so if we are to test LmL we can put our faith in that. However, on reviewing, I noticed another reason to believe LmL is lying.

On day 1,

he failed the posting requirements

- and yet he claims to have received a message from Turbovolver that night.

Furthermore, not once has he even commented on the plan to confirm himself, being as vague as possible at every turn. He jumped at the opportunity to use Commodore's list to refer to himself as "80% cleared" to avoid

nominations

, and yet this opportunity to confirm himself with some degree of robustness not only did not occur to him, he has not even referred to it!

Also, even if we

do

prove Lee has that ability, which I very much doubt will happen, all that proves is that he has that ability,

not

that he is pro-town.

The signs are pretty overwhelming that Lee is lying scum. Then we have the question - why not leave him until tomorrow, as CES has suggested? Well, that leaves us with two options - lynch someone else, or lynch no-one else. If we no-lynch, we cannot even attempt the confirmation strategy on Lee tomorrow. If not, we have effectively the choice between Pooky - who said he also is "fairly" confirmable, but has not elaborated since - and myself, and I can guarantee you I am a bad lynch.

I am sticking with my vote on Lee unless it is a choice between a Pooky lynch and a no-lynch. I am also prepared to claim if necessary and to post an encoded message if the town resolves to lynch me.

[Seol]

You clearly have the same stipulation as I do - that you can only use your ability when you have satisfied your posting requirement. The rules don't actually say you will not be able to use your nightchoice if you fail the requirements, they use the much vaguer term "will result in some sort of penalty". As Lee is not claiming a nightchoice, then it makes no sense for the penalty to be depriving him of that

non-existent

nightchoice. My impression is that failing posting requirements turns the role "off" - so those with nightchoices cannot submit them, and those with passive abilities (such as what Lee has claimed) lose those abilities. This makes sense - we can only reap the rewards of being ourselves when we are true to our nature - as well as fitting what we know. I appreciate it is not a given - not as solid as the lead DG found for us - but it certainly gave me pause for thought.


Of course, it

may

be that the penalty Lee faced was something else entirely - in which case, Lee, could you please tell us what it was?

[Seol]

Werebear, I think you have a somewhat narrow view of Satanism. Believe it or not, not all Satanists are actually evil - mostly more delusional and, how shall I put this,

goth

. I think it's certainly plausible we have a pro-town Satanist - certainly to the extent that I would not use that as sufficient reason to lynch someone.

It is possible that CES is scum claiming to be a mason, and that co-scum will support him when we get a partner-claim from him (I am thinking tomorrow would probably be advisable). If co-scum support him, then if either dies at any point then

the other one will be next to the gallows

. If no-one supports him, then we lynch him. If necessary, we investigate or vig one of them to prove the others.

I totally agree that the "keep an eye on X, we can lynch them later" is poor strategy, and that is why I am still heavily in favour of Lee's lynch. However, claiming mason at this stage of the game is monumentally difficult to pull off, and scum

cannot

escape if the town pays attention. It is the inherent foolishness of the move, if he is scum, which justifies putting him to one side for the time being at least.

[Seol]

So, you

were

lying the whole time. That's

why

we were attacking you. You volunteered information for no reason that was entirely fabricated. Why?

Your "pope" restriction does not explain your "scary"/"frightened" restriction (and you posted a hell of a lot of scary/ghost references).

Your threat is duly noted. I still don't believe you.

Oh, look, CES beat me to the punch...

[Seol]

Why would you say

anything at all

about your ability? I mean, really? It's not like the presence of the letter "P" automatically lends itself to the conclusion that you are the Pope.

Also, which Pope? "The Pope" isn't a person, it's a

position

. They all have names.

Also, I am not asking these questions in the expectation of getting meaningful answers, I am just having fun pointing out how ridiculous you have been today.

You are scum and you are caught. You'll be dead in thirty minutes.

[Seol]

As I read about Alexander VI, yes, it appears quite plausible that he is scum. This puts an interesting spin on CES' Satanism.

Well, DrippingGoofball, I think it somehow poetic that Robert G Ingersoll, of all people, has exposed a Pope to be a criminal in our midst, don't you? I raise my glass to you.

I do love these heavy doses of irony.

[Seol]

I am 100% convinced LML was scum - we haven't been told

anyone's

allegiances, but up until yesterday the natural assumption was that we'd be told we'd hit scum when we do. However, the combination of his behaviour and his true character, Alexander VI, means I simply

cannot

believe he was on the town's side - his play simply would not make any sense.

This means we're going to have to reason on limited information, as we'll be restricted in how useful future hindsight is - I'm now taking this to mean we won't ever find out anyone's allegiances on death. It seems this is a no-reveal game.

tss, when you refer to Lee's fraudulent attack on Commodore Amazing, do you mean Cogito Ergo Sum, or are you referring to something I'm missing?

Also, in respect of petroleumjelly, I can see possible violations of his restriction, depending on what her restriction actually

is

. I don't think we need him to explain exactly how or why he failed, do we?

[Seol]

Commodore Amazing: When I say I am 100% certain that Lee was scum, that is not based on information known exclusively to me - that is my assessment based on the happenings of yesterday. I simply find it

inconcievable

that Lee would be on our side and yet behave as he did. I suppose the 100% was slight hyperbole - 99% would probably be more accurate, but I would find it difficult to justify that 1%. It would certainly be nice to have confirmation, but it looks unlikely.

petroleumjelly: Hindsight is 20/20. We can only act on the information we have in front of us at a given moment. I would expect that somewhere in the region of 80% of us are innocent, and as such, in the early game where we have limited information to work from, it does not seem unreasonable that 80% of our votes/nominations will be on innocents.

I also find it interesting that you repeatedly refer to DrippingGoofball as an "arbitrary innocent", which suggests you have no reason to believe her innocent. I could understand it if you were prepared to use your belief of her innocence as a basis for reasoning if you had some justification of that belief, but the implication of your words is you do not. What is particularly odd about that is we

do

have quite a good reason to believe her innocent - specifically, her spearheading of the attack on Lee yesterday on an entirely solid basis - and yet, you consider her only "arbitrarily innocent".

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you refer to yourself as "clearly not scum". Are you just being glib here, or have I missed something (entirely possible, a lot is being said here today)?

Pooky: That is certainly an interesting piece of information, but could I ask why you think it would clear you? It is certainly evidence that you knew something about Thok (either via an ability or because you discussed it at night), but it is not implausible that our enemies can gather data too. This is not to say I think it reflects ill on you - I don't - but that doesn't mean it proves your innocence. As for your remaining piece of information, I would have thought that if it is of similar ilk to the information about Thok, it is far more valuable in catching scum in a lie than being revealed to the town.

Speaking of supporting innocence, how many people have claimed their roles are confirmable so far? By my count, we have Cogito, Mike, Pooky (who I think means something other than what I take "confirmable" to mean), Fritzler (tomorrow?) and Commodore.

I'd like to say a few words about Commodore. Specifically, I am skeptical. His ability seems remarkably good - not just in terms of the information it can provide (if we can trust his results, then at the end of day 3 we have

7

confirmed innocents - the phrase "too good to be true" comes to mind), but also with the other "extras" that have been thrown in - the ability to turn into a bear, the information about the number of "Caesars", and the ability to cast roles.

Firstly, I find it interesting that you know

exactly

what the "good hanging" means, but have no real idea about the bear or Caesar ability. Admittedly, it is somewhat less ambiguous, but nonetheless it is being used as the fulcrum of our discussions today, and we should be careful about assuming that we can take "The List" at face value. Unfortunately, it is

not

a particularly testable theory, as no single lynch off the list can prove anything (the only way to prove it is by either lynching scum from the list, or by lynching the entirety of the "off-list").

Secondly, I would like to speculate briefly about your "bear" ability. You say you do not know what it means, but you assume it means you both die - what leads you to that conclusion (as I do not know the context in which it was presented to you)? My immediate guesses would have been it was either an opportunity to kill that player or to track them, and see what they did after exiting stage left. It strikes me that if I am correct, then doing either of these on a player on the "bear" list could be useful to the town. If you were to die in the process, then this would obviously be less good, hence my question as to why you believe this to be the case.

Thirdly, you say that you can cast roles. Quite apart from this being easily explained by a cult, it should be noted (as I did with Pooky) that this would only confirm you as having the ability to cast roles, not the ability to determine who qualifies as a "good hanging".

For now, whilst I still have my eye on Pooky I do not believe him to be a good target today. I see that Fritzler has brought little to the table and can support his nomination, and despite his presence on the List Werebear is giving me very bad vibes - particularly his continued pursual of Cogito Ergo Sum. I am also curious about Thok - it seems to me that our scum have more to hide than our innocents, and it would be wise to, to paraphrase DG, keep the option open.

nominate: Fritzler, Werebear, Thok

[Seol]

Tamuz: whilst it seems plausible, by my read we have not heard from our Mason that his Satanism and his Masonry are connected. Seeing as the postulate is pretty obvious, it would probably be wise for Cogito to either confirm or deny that Mikeburnfire is a co-mason at this point. I would also point out regarding your comments about DST/BST, the lack of change gives us MORE time - 8pm according to Mr. Grey is 9pm by my watch.

Re Thok: Whilst I would describe his actions as misleading, I don't think it's justified to call them lies. This isn't something he stated - not once did he say that it related to his post restriction - he simply left a false trail to protect the genuine one. There are reasons why a pro-town player might want to do that, but it's still a noteworthy observation.

Commodore: In respect of the bear issue, I am seeking clarity, not satisfaction. I was simply noting that your initial impression of the ability and mine differed, although I note that I might not have as much information about the ability as you, and the ability

may

be more useful than you first thought. If it does simply mean both you and the target exit the game, then we want to be quite careful as to how, when, and indeed if you are to use it.

In respect of the roles you cast, you said they could confirm your casting ability today. It strikes me that it would be a good idea to do that. As for the possibility of a cult, well, if you had recruited people they could claim to be cast as Hamlet et al whether they were cast in that role or not - the Shakespeare need be nothing more than a red herring. What were you asking me to enlighten you on - the possibility that the recruitment turned you from a "good Shakespeare" to a "bad Shakespeare"? That's how your question reads to me, and I would agree with your implication that it sounds like nonsense.

In respect of the List, there are reasons why it may not be totally reliable that do not mean you are lying - for example, some may be able to fool you through the audition process (eg a Godfather) - and a little skepticism is a healthy thing. I'm not saying we should disregard it, but we should be careful about assuming that those on the "bad hanging" list are now confirmed. There also remains the possibility that you are lying, of course.

petroleumjelly: You asked for comments on your analysis, and I provided comments. My objection to your comments about DG were with the word "arbitrary" - it seems your perception of DG's innocence was

not

arbitrary, which is a good thing.

In respect of my "hindsight is 20/20" comment, my point was not that the information was useless, but simply that such processes are inevitably going to throw up a lot of false positives. Vote/nomination analysis is a strong tool - but it is one which is weak at first, and gains strength throughout the game. It is also not true that scum will necessarily avoid voting/nominating each other, as they are aware of vote analysis as a tool and will often do so to distance themselves. I'm not saying that means your analysis is worthless - far from - but some perspective is useful.

As for the "glib" reference - I have on occasions in the past glibly referred to myself as clearly innocent, and so I wanted to check whether you meant it seriously or not. I could not see anything that leaves you as "clearly innocent", although I will agree your pursual of LmL reflects well on you. I would put you as "likely innocent" rather than "clearly", but that is not a huge difference.

I am not saying I think you are suspicious - that was not the purpose of my comments. Rather, I was seeking clarity on certain issues, and wanting to put forward my opinion on others. You certainly do seem fired up, though!

My position on DG did indeed change yesterday. It changed as a direct result of her finding Lee's lie and the resultant lynch. My take on a situation will often change due to new information, if that information is relevant.

[Seol]

Pretty much all of us have a restriction. Some of our restrictions are more obvious than others, and some of our restrictions are more suggestive of our true nature than others. I would not say that the mentioning of a foodstuff in every post would be sufficient to derive Thok's true face, and thus his abilities, and if that is his genuine restriction, I would question why he felt the need to conceal it. I am therefore presuming that that is

not

his restriction.

To pose a straw man, if I were to mention the number seventeen in every post without having been required to by external forces, would that be a lie? If so - what was untrue about it?

Thok has intentionally misled us. This reflects badly on him. Nonetheless, this is

not the same as lying

- at no point has he uttered an untruth, he has merely given us the

opportunity

to come to an incorrect conclusion. There are conceivable situations where it is the correct play to mask your identity.

In conclusion - we should probably expect an explanation from Thok, but lying carries a lot of very specific weight in this game, and is not an accusation to be thrown around lightly. It is not justified here.

This should only be read a defence of Thok in so far as the attacks have been disproportionate - this is more of a plea for sanity and measured responses. I am still of the opinion that Thok needs scrutiny, and should be on the block.

My nomination also stands.

[Seol]

Mike: Your masonry was fairly obvious. That's why there was little harm (whilst providing robustness) in confirming it. What is less than obvious is why you were concerned with outing CES

"as scum"

. Could you please explain that comment?

Fritzler: There is no "hammah" in this game - the lynch happens

if

there is a majority,

when

the day ends. Are you claiming that your ability to confirm yourself relies on posting during a nonexistent portion of the day?

And finally - how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? My research indicates the answer is 44 kilograms per hour, although I am not sure of the reliability of my methodology. For clarity, this entire paragraph is nonsense.

[Seol]

I must be missing something here. How would doing that confirm you? All it would do is prove you have that

ability

, not your

alignment

.

If you believed using your ability would confirm you, why didn't you use it on previous days?

On a different note, I would like to express my condolences in respect of your friend. One of my friends' parents was killed back in 2003 when they were hit by a bunch of kids in a stolen car - I know how it can seem so sudden, so random and so unfair.

[Seol]

To clarify - I am not saying that Commodore's list must be misleading, or should be disregarded. I am not saying that his ability is too powerful to be genuine - the ability certainly could exist. I am not saying he is simply lying. I am not saying that external forces have tampered with his results to result in a misleading total of "bad hangings". Nor am I saying that the ability to make the List could not coexist with the ability to transform into a bear, determine the number of Caesars in a group, and cast roles. I am simply saying that these are all possibilities worth bearing in mind.

I am trying to make the point that we cannot

rely

on the accuracy of the List, and that evidence of Commodore's ability to cast roles is

not

proof of the validity of the list. That is all.

Commodore: If I didn't know better, I'd say that your comment about the lack of other information roles in this game was an attempt to fish them out. I would point out that Pooky has

actually claimed an information role today

, and provided information which has been confirmed by a third party.

Werebear: Could you please confirm that you are the Clown?

And now I am off out for the evening - many pints of 1664, and a glorious musical performance to anticipate. Well, probably not all that glorious.

[Seol]

Two interesting developments. Firstly, in respect of VitaminR -

Screaming Lord Sutch was, since 1983, the founder and head of the Monster Raving Loony Party, the official joke political party of the United Kingdom. The shouting fits, and so does the soliciting of nominations for no good reason. He is a plausible member of our gathering, a uniquely British personality, and totally harmless - I find the claim eminently plausible.

Secondly, in respect of Commodore Amazing -

We have a disparity here. Commodore said he believed the roles he cast could come forward to confirm him. It seems that Werebear and DrippingGoofball cannot. However, Lee seemed aware that he was a Caesar. More importantly, Lee was aware he was Caesar

yesterday

, on the same day when Commodore said his cast roles would be able to step forward if required, which means...

...if Lee was aware he was a Caesar yesterday, then all our cast roles would probably have been aware they had been cast yesterday. However, yesterday Commodore said he believed that the cast roles would be able to step forward tomorrow (ie, meaning today).

There is a possible explanation for this - it is entirely possible that LML's "Et tu?" comments were not a reference to his being cast as Caesar, but instead a response to feelings of being stabbed in the back, a last-ditch sympathy ploy. So, let us consider that it is possible that Lee was not aware he was Caesar yesterday - which means that it does, possibly, fit that the cast roles only knew they had been cast today.

Then we have the second issue - that of Commodore having cast himself in a role. If Commodore

has

been cast as Hamlet, then surely he should be aware what the effect of being cast in a role

was

- even if it was nothing. If it was nothing... then he would be aware that Werebear and DrippingGoofball would be unable to step forward, and yet he did not mention anything to that effect, instead continuing with the "confirmation" plan. This is all very mysterious.

Commodore - do you have

any

idea what the effect of casting a role is, either in your capacity as caster or castee?

For that matter, could you please clarify if you know anything more about the meaning of "turning into a bear" than has been made public already, or the meaning/function of the "Caesars"? I do not want to know the details, I merely want to establish what proportion of your abilities you have been given only cryptic hints to the function (or lack thereof) of.

[Seol]

At this point, I feel it would be wise to come forward. I can tell which way the wind is blowing, and better to explain myself now than when time pressures leave us little recourse.

I am a Mason.

Specifically, I am

Perry

Mason.

I cannot confirm myself. What I can do, however, is confirm someone

else

, as I have a one-use ability to investigate and discover whether a player is innocent or guilty. I have not used the ability thus far.

I have also been subject to an additional posting restriction today, about which I wish only to say - seventy-three.

[Seol]

Yes, Perry is a fictional character. I hinted as to my fictional basis on day 2, when I commented that my role violated one of Mikeburnfire's reasons why Satan would not be in the game (which were that Satan was not a person who existed in the past, that Satan was not based on someone who lived within the last millennium, unlike all roles seen so far).

I'm not sure that a religious theme is a valid assumption, either - Huey Pierce Long was not a religious character, nor was Cyrano de Bergerac, and for that matter nor was Shakespeare or Screaming Lord Sutch.

I am retired - strictly speaking, at the grand old age of 83, I should not be getting involved in cases

at all

- however, I can never resist a good mystery. Nor can I resist my little

flourishes

of speech from my days in the courtroom.

And Fiasco: I am not claiming to be a Mason in the usual sense of the word. I could not resist a little wordplay.

[Seol]

Much to say.

First of all, with regards to Werebear's comments about night blocks - this has happened to me every day I failed posting requirements. One of the causes of failure is insufficient verbosity. Another cause is failure to follow my restriction. Both are simply classified as "failing posting requirements".

One effect of failing requirements was to miss my nightchoice. Another was, after the first offence, automatic qualification for the lynching block. Is anyone aware of any reasons for automatic qualification for the block

other

than failing posting requirements? If not, that probably means that all those on the block on a given day had failed their requirements the previous day and therefore also faced the penalty at night.

Pooky: You raise a good point about the confirmability of the Masons in this no-reveal environment. Unfortunately, I cannot think of

everything

. Cogito, you say that either you or Mike dying would confirm the masonry as you are "not standalone characters" - are you sure that, in this most uncertain world, the information revealed would totally exonerate you?

Fiasco: Why does it worry you that

I

pointed out MBF's "scum" slip?

And finally, on our Masons for today, Mike, you said that CES was not scum "to your knowledge". CES said that he had your innocence

confirmed

, can you say the same about CES?

On "uniquely British" - this does not suggest Sutch is innocent, what it does is reinforce the claim's plausibility. Sutch is was a fairly obscure character even in Britain - one of our beloved eccentrics, up until his unfortunate death in 1999 - and I would imagine he is almost unheard of overseas. I don't know whether you noticed, but the mysterious Mr. Grey talks with a British accent, whereas the mask VitaminR wears conveys a definite Dutch aura. Put simply - Mr. Grey would know enough about Sutch to invite him to our little soiree, whereas it is an unlikely fabrication from VitaminR. This is only a weak point - however, it is worth considering.

On "confirmable roles", some are throwing this term around a little loosely. I do not consider myself confirmable, and nor do I consider Pooky or Fritzler confirmable by what they have claimed thusfar (proving the possession of an ability does not prove alignment). Commodore has already his asserted his confirmability once and failed to follow through, and now his postulated confirmability is only via his own death.

tss: You say that Commodore's volunteering to come forward reduces the chances of it being a lie? That is true, but do bear in mind Lee came forward, unprompted, with a lie yesterday - I would not want to disregard that possibility. I am not saying that Commodore is definitely lying - although I think there is a good chance of that - but if some aspects of his role simply do not function the way he expected, how can we be so sure other aspects do?

Tamuz - we are not here because we are "important and influential", but because we are

verbose

. Sutch may have talked a lot of nonsense - but that does not diminish that

he talked a lot

.

[Seol]

This is little more than a check-in post, I'm afraid. I'll make a more detailed post as soon as I can.

First things first - I used my ability last night, and Commodore is good. I'm assuming that as it was only one-shot, my sanity is reliable (as there's no way of determining it via results analysis). I still have my doubts about the reliability of his results, regardless.

Secondly - where are our kills coming from? I think it's a given that our suicide kills come from Derren Brown (the UK's favourite mentalist!) - this is a guy who recently had a TV special where he brainwashed (under the cover of motivational speaking) a dozen middle-class executives to the state where they would hold up a security truck. If

anyone

could convince people to commit suicide, it's him.

This begs the question - what about the other kills? Or, more specifically, what about the

lack

of them? We've only had

one

non-suicide kill so far, and that hit our "serial killer". Do we even

have

a Mafia in the usual sense?

To paraphrase DG, I don't know.

[Seol]

To answer a query from Commodore a day or two ago, my result is quite unambiguous - I would either find out he was good or bad. Obviously, I discovered he was good. This tallies with my win condition (not word-for-word, but close enough).

As for the case against myself, it appears to be an assessment not of

me

per se, but of my "weak claim", to which all I can say is - that's my role. There's nothing I can say about the ability - sure, it doesn't provide a train of results which can clear me, but how is that weaker than, for example, Sutch's effectively vanilla role? As for the name-claim, given the mason claim, does it still seem so weak? I can also cite the stances I've taken - pro-CES, anti-Pooky (not that it proves anything), anti-LML. Some wrong stances too, but nobody's perfect.

Are our masons scum? I think it's unlikely. There's a lot of support for their claim. The only thing that worries me is that maybe they knew about the limited-reveal, and chose to use that to their advantage (as they couldn't be proven scum by it), but that assumes a lot of foreknowledge to the scum. Then again, informed minority vs uninformed majority....?

It doesn't seem hugely surprising they're not dead as it's already been discussed that if necessary we'd have to kill them - giving the scum a free kill and possibly even a guaranteed mislynch when the time is right. It may be we have to place our trust in them and just reason that the combined plausibility of no masons plus scum knowing there's no masons plus scum putting all eggs in one basket despite risk of cross-kills and investigations and

doing so from day 1

when the hints began is enough to trust them. After all, it's not like a 3-man Mason group is uncommon. If there are any vigilantes or investigative roles left, VERIFYING THE MASONS SHOULD BE THE NUMBER ONE JOB. I don't expect that opportunity will come up though.

Cogito, you said you discussed overnight why I'm the "correct lynch" for today. Please explain. Is it simply the claim?

Can we trust Commodore's results? If we can, then it's fairly clear here on out. He's not lying (unless he's a GF, and though I keep seeing scum tells from him, I think that's just confirmation bias), the question is how open the results are to interpretation (and/or GF tampering?). The presence of all 3 masons on the cleared list makes it look more feasible, though, and I suspect that one of the claimed information roles is scum.... and with Commodore cleared and me cleared (to me, anyway), that points towards Fiasco (who, just as it happens, is useless until dead). Fiasco and VitaminR are the remaining NAGHs (apart from myself) and I'm increasingly inclined to think that it's plausible it's correct. Yes, I realise that reflects badly on me.

There's even the argument that if Fiasco's telling the truth, we'll get useful information when he dies which will help us further puzzle the situation out. I'm thinking Fiasco is the right lynch ATM.

I don't trust Werebear's baying for blood. I especially don't like the reasons he cites. He's my only non-NAGH nomination. VitaminR, why do you think his persistence casts him in a pro-town light?

nominate: Fiasco, VitaminR, Werebear

[Seol]

Dammit. I was pretty sure CA was scum ever since he posted this on day 1:

I'm not worried about Seol; I believe the scum will kill Seol if he's town.

But I wasn't keeping up well at that point, and the town was talking about stuff I needed to respond to. By the time I had time to sit down, it was difficult to compose an effective attack based on it, and too late for a simple raised eyebrow post. I shouldn't have signed up for this game, I was on a downward turn in my playing and the

last

thing I needed was once-every-24-hour requirements. Lured in by an invite from Mith, too.

When I get back into playing (and I'm starting to get that itch again, thanks to the ethics threads ), I'll be doubly verbose.

But, I figured that being one-shot meant my results had to be accurate. Bad mistake.