Originally Posted by Tyrith (Post 1300865)

Stuff like forgetting that she had played with you before seems highly unlikely to be wolfish to me. A fact that can be easily checked is a bad choice of fact to try to pass off on the rest of us. I wish you'd come up with some other reason than her being quiet to suspect her because votes like this will set off alarms with most of the people in this game.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik (Post 1300889)

Do you know what the voting oddity was?

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik (Post 1300900)

So you were pushing for a lynch for someone based on a voting oddity that you weren't sure of? Seems odd to me.

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1300832)

I do find your moves suspicious so far. The late meaningless move onto a bad guy, followed by the insistence the next day that no bad guys could possibly have known he was bad when in fact it hasn't been proved one way or another.

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1300926)

That is a flat lie. I never insisted any such thing. By reading the death notice, I said that is looked likely that he wasn't on either bad team. That is it. You can find a reason to vote for me, but don't make one up.



Not managed to stay off the person being lynched, being outvoted. Slight difference there.



No argument here.

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1297681)

Is it possible they didn't know he was Dark?

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1297695)

I agree that none of them would take out a member of their own faction, but if one or more were dark and on the same team, they may not have knows that Scoobz was on the other dark team (or was a dark independent).

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1297937)

It will be nice when we get another dark guy taken out so we can compare the death messages. I agree that it sounds like Scoobz was non-affiliated, but I'm still not sure if I positively believe he was non-affiliated. A comparison message would be nice.

Either way, he was dark and it is good that he is dead. It just makes me nervous when I don't know how many bad teams there are.

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1297977)

I am going to disagree with this. His info on page one says he was "on the side of darkness". Fouts info says he was "on the side of Light and the townsfolks". If Scoobz was on the side of Saruman, I think it would say so specifically.

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1300938)

I would hate for facts to get in the way of a good story and all, but I already spent about an hour looking through posts to find which people I felt fit a certain profile. Right now the ones that stood out to me most were you, Mr.Wednesday and Ntndeacon.

Below are the posts from you on the subject, I did not include the interplay Mr.Wednesday had with you going back and forth, but to me you two sure did seem to easily conclude it was fact that bad guys didn't know Scoobz was on their team. It seemed awfully convienant for you two that would be the case considering your actions that day.

Originally Posted by AlanT

In this game the bad guys don't necessarily know who all the other bad guys are, but they just know who isn't on their team.

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1300947)

I don't think you at all proved what you were trying to. You have also said:

From the death notice, and knowing that we get full faction reveals on death, it looks to me like Scoobz wasn't on either bad team. Seems like a logical conclusion that if he wasn't on either bad team and the bad guys know only who is on their team (which you suggest and is reasonable), then the bad guys wouldn't have known that Scoobz was bad.

I'm not positive that this is the case, but basic reading comprehension sure seems to imply it.

Originally Posted by Blade6119 (Post 1300821)

The reasons for sublime are based on this game only...my reasons for izulde are heavily based upon the fact last time i saw him play, in which he was evil, i feel he played basically the exact same game. So take it for what you will, but no one can accuse me of not saying what im thinking

Oh, and now i have a 4th canidate, becuase they werent killed last night. If this person doesnt die tonight, they will go much further up my list.

Originally Posted by Tyrith (Post 1300809)

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second and go with the people blade has been talking about. Saldana, well, I've never liked him....oh, wait, you mean he's dead already? Aw. :P

Sublime 2 - Hasn't been on the lynched candidate either of the last two days. His posts generally seem to indicate he's just trying to do the right thing and he's a little overwhelmed right now....if this isn't setting off alarms in your head considering who is posting this, it should be. I pulled off this BS scheme before. The fact that he wasn't on the lynchee means we can't read his votes, so we don't know what side he's on. Would a more experienced bad guy help along with this plan? I certainly think it's possible. I started picking up a real bad vibe about Sublime yesterday because of the parallels with myself, so consider me suspicious.

Izulde - I really don't know. I read over his posts yesterday evening and didn't get anything too alarming...but now that I look again, the accusations do cause problems. I'm suspicious here too, but I don't have nearly as much to back it up. Sublime would come first if I were to vote between the two.

I'm still suspicious of most of the quieter people that have done middle-late votes on rum and kwhit...gram for sure, lsg, Mr.W (would be playing a really nice game because he's doing his best to make it seem like he's a team player), and Thomkal. And with Schmidty....well, he could be dropping hints he has a really big role, or there could be some nonsense going on.

Originally Posted by Blade6119 (Post 1300843)

Alright, this is eventually going to get me lynched, but the new and improved list:

1.Sublime
2.Izulde
2.Thomkal

2 and 3 are tied for 2

4.?? is a ways back, and is now strongly tied to #2b

Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 1300954)

It may get you lynched sooner than you expect. I am a villager as I've said all along. I think the only reason you have me on that list is because I find it suspicious you weren't killed last night when you yourself expected it. I've thought since the beginning you were a fellow villager, but now I'm really beginning to have my doubts. You were wrong about saldana on your previous list, and you are wrong about me. So I don't think we should be trusting your instincts right now.

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick (Post 1300962)

Well, I just spent a good chunk of time looking through posts and my head is starting to hurt. A couple of people jump out at me.

I filtered my spreadsheet to people who voted for both CR and Kwhit (both known good) and throwaway votes on Day 1 (I'm still of the belief that Day 1 DOES mean something), and the following match:

Mr. W (voted for spleen on Day 1)
Schmidty (voted for fouts Day 1)

I like Schmidty and all, but like JE mentioned, after Schmidty said he had an important role and is still alive (in spite of 3 deaths last night), I'm starting to suspect him more.

Vote Schmidty

I get the paranoia when AlanT mentions your name, but I also think that your wittiness is deflecting attention away from yourself.

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1300950)

You can argue the fact whether or not people knew of Scoobz' affiliation before his death or not. However saying that I am lying about you making that arguement when you fully admit it now doesn't fly :)

Originally Posted by rules

There will be two sides in this game, the side of light and the side of dark. Almost every player will be on one side or the other.

Originally Posted by rules

On each side there are two factions, almost every player will be in one or the other faction, although a few outsiders may exist.

This is a hidden roles game. No roles are revealed prior to beginning, although faction affiliation and the name of the role are revealed upon death. The role itself, may remain a mystery.

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick (Post 1300962)

Well, I just spent a good chunk of time looking through posts and my head is starting to hurt. A couple of people jump out at me.

I filtered my spreadsheet to people who voted for both CR and Kwhit (both known good) and throwaway votes on Day 1 (I'm still of the belief that Day 1 DOES mean something), and the following match:

Mr. W (voted for spleen on Day 1)
Schmidty (voted for fouts Day 1)

I like Schmidty and all, but like JE mentioned, after Schmidty said he had an important role and is still alive (in spite of 3 deaths last night), I'm starting to suspect him more.

Vote Schmidty

I get the paranoia when AlanT mentions your name, but I also think that your wittiness is deflecting attention away from yourself.

Originally Posted by Blade6119 (Post 1300961)

Im not the death you suspected that worries me about you

Originally Posted by Izulde (Post 1300894)

I'm largely going based off my past experiences with her and a strong hunch. Could I be wrong? Possibly. But based on the current situation, I'm pretty darned certain she's bad.

Originally Posted by Izulde (Post 1300846)

Yes I have played with you. Remember that beginner game? And that other one game I was in where I got night killed early, you may have been in that, too.

Originally Posted by Swaggs (Post 1296500)

Did everyone receive a name with their roles?

I know Alan did. I did also.

Originally Posted by Swaggs (Post 1296976)

Not to say that you are not, but I find it interesting that you haven't come out and said that you are on the side of light. Instead you are kind of attacking back at Alan.

Originally Posted by Swaggs (Post 1298439)

It's no joke at all. With 25 people, this is still like a day 1 vote. I doubt either of these guys are on the dark side, either, but it worked yesterday. And, if it turns out that this is a close, two-man race, vote, we may be able to look back on today's and yesterday's votes to put together a decent list of suspects, particularly since we did hit yesterday.

I can understand your frustration, but don't play angry. Play smart.

Originally Posted by Swaggs (Post 1298486)

Outside of a seer or witness fingering someone, what is enough to justify voting for someone on day 1 or day 2? If you want no lynch, that is fine, but I think it is smart to build a track record and start taking using the tools available to us to solve things.

Originally Posted by Swaggs (Post 1298650)

Why did you vote for me, then?

I am one of the few people that have come out and said I am on the side of light and I put out my position that, agree with me or not, I feel like we need to vote/lynch someone because it is one of the only tools available to us, yet you vote for me because I am being suspicious.

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1298659)

Oh you voted for swaggs. ok my bad. I'll fix that. I didnt read clearly. sorry am trying to get the place cleaned up too

Originally Posted by Tyrith (Post 1300970)

I really, really don't like this vote. The wolves could very well have left schmidty live because they feared he would be guarded and/or someone hoped someone would do exactly this. Furthermore, one of the deaths last night was something the bad guys couldn't have known anything about barring a role scanning ability. This is really fishy to me.

Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 1300991)

You thought you might be killed last night, and gave a list of people that you thought were evil. So why shouldn't I be surprised you are still alive?

Originally Posted by Tyrith (Post 1300809)

I'm still suspicious of most of the quieter people that have done middle-late votes on rum and kwhit... [...] Mr.W (would be playing a really nice game because he's doing his best to make it seem like he's a team player)[...]

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1300980)

I don't now what you are getting at here other than trying to make stuff up. You attributed to me the statement that "There is no way the bad guys could have possibly known he was bad". I never said that. I said they probably didn't know he was bad. You are trying to claim that I have perfect knowledge of what the bad guys do and don't know. I don't. I was just tryign to figure out stuff like everyone else.



There is a difference, probably because their status was different. According to the rules:


This clearly implies that there will be some neither light nor dark..like SnDvls.

Also from the rules:


These lines tell me that there can also be light or dark who aren't members of a faction...like Scoobz. It also tells me that "faction affiliation...are revealed upon death"



So basically you aren't saying that I am wrong, you are saying the rules are wrong. Even though the rules say faction affiliation will be revealed on death, you are pushing the position that my believing that factions will be revealed upon death makes me bad.

Is that really the argument you want to make?

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick (Post 1301002)

Uhh... wtf was that? I had this stuff quoted because I was looking at swaggs posts because he's another one I suspect.

Oh well, whatever. I suspect Swaggs as well because he's been utr and seems to be playing the same kind of game he did in the SAW game when he ended up being evil.

Izulde, well, he's a different story.

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1300938)

Below are the posts from you on the subject, I did not include the interplay Mr.Wednesday had with you going back and forth, but to me you two sure did seem to easily conclude it was fact that bad guys didn't know Scoobz was on their team.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday (Post 1301012)

I concluded it independently of anyone else, and I don't think Brian was even the most prominent in agreeing with my. Tyrith did as well.

So far, the only logic you've offered for the opposing position is some LOTR-theme gobbledygook. Convince me I'm wrong: since the dark adept is clearly NOT in a particular faction (Anxiety has clearly stated that factions are revealed upon death), why do the bad guys know who the dark adept was?

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1301000)

You seem to be arguing semantics, I quoted the posts where you were telling people that you felt that bad guys wouldn't know Scoobz' role and you are arguing about things that I quoted you saying. You then go on to further argue the point that I am saying that you are arguing in the first place :confused:

Originally Posted by AlanT

I do find your moves suspicious so far. The late meaningless move onto a bad guy, followed by the insistence the next day that no bad guys could possibly have known he was bad when in fact it hasn't been proved one way or another.

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1301018)

How am I supposed to know what the bad guys knew?? If you and BrianD are sure that you all didn't know who Scoobz was before hand, then fine I'll admit that one of the bad guy's sides didn't know him!

Seriously though, like I said before I based my suspect list on those who voted Lathum day 2 and had weird votes on day 1 involving Scoobz. The whole knowing or not knowing about Scoobz was something interesting I picked up along the way. I still won't be suprised to find out that you guys knew ahead of time.

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1301010)

lol... well I was reading it and figured something like that happened. Looks like your thought process was trying to find a link between Swaggs and me. :)

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1301029)

So now you aren't really accusing us of what you were accusing us of, but we still probably knew anyway. Nice. :)

Originally Posted by Tyrith (Post 1301034)

Thinking about day 1...it's possible, although I suspect not terribly likely, that scoobz was unaffiliated and they knew who he was. Something like the master/apprentice scenario from the sith game, where they could bring him to their side and knew his identify, but he was blind.

Originally Posted by Blade6119 (Post 1300996)

You shouldnt be suprised, thats one of the perks of my play style. Wolves tend to leave me alone at night since they think ill be lynched soon enough. But if you somehow think, with how i acted on day 1, ive made it this far without being scanned your simply not thinking clearly. If im bad you will know whenever the seer comes forward.

But again, it doesnt sound like your listening. I said i was not my suspected death that worried me about you, it was your comments about schmidty

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1301044)

That is one of my thoughts, but like I have said the entire game, until we know more well we won't know for sure. I just found it interesting when people were trying to push a certain idea or agenda when we don't really know the full story.

Originally Posted by Thomkal (Post 1301050)

The fact that a seer hasn't come forward yet and mentioned you is what makes me think you are a villager as I'm sure you were an early scan target. I just don't like the fact that you pegged Saldana wrong, and now me.

And I was listening, I just misunderstood your post. :) Why shouldn't I have expected Schmidty to be a night-kill? He's the first one in this game to really reveal as a good-aligned role, and perhaps a powerful one at that. I suppose the bad guys might have thought he be guarded, but he might of been worth the risk too.

I just thought this needed to be discussed, as I'm sure I'm not the only one who had their suspicions raised.

Originally Posted by Izulde (Post 1300902)

Rather, I knew the voting oddity occurred and the shape of it.. and I remembered that it happened on a lynch that turned out to be good.

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1301060)

Is it really an agenda to say that I think this situation is detailed specifically in the rules?

There was even a question for Anxiety about the faction identifiers in the report and his only answer was that he thought it was quite clear (or something to that effect). Who has the agenda?

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1301041)

If I knew for sure that you and/or Mr.W were bad, then I would come out and say: "I know you and/or Mr.W are bad!"

Obviously there was some tongue in cheek in my response to Mr.W but thats mostly because you all are arguing the side thought that I had which I found interesting rather than the reason I am suspicious of you.

I still feel there is some validity with lathum dying to what looks like a different killer than most of the normal night kills to look at who was voting for him during the day. I then narrowed it down further by seeing who had voting weirdness on day 1 involving someone who ended up a bad guy (whether you knew he was bad or not before hand). That narrowed the list down to three names. You, Mr.W and Ntndeacon (who I voted for yesterday and so far today).

Once I had that list narrowed down I spent an hour or so looking over the posts from that group. Of course I didn't find much from ntndeacon because he has been quieter than a stump. I saw the stuff from you and Mr.W and thought it was interesting enough to mention it and it added to my suspicions.

So from my viewpoint, you all are making a huge fuss over the part I found interesting and totally ignoring what put me in your direction in the first place (the ties to lathum)

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik (Post 1301065)

You consider the CR lynch a good one?

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1301067)

I think the agenda is more the non-acceptance of possibilities that may lie within the rules but not spelled out by them. Tyrith mentioned one such possibility.

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1301074)

If you want to be suspicious of my moves, that is fine. I'm trying to knock out the bad guys, but you are allowed to see suspicion in my moves. The fact that you combined suspicion with the rules discussion seems like bad logic. The fact that you are now backing off and calling that discussion "interesting" doesn't change the fact that you used bad logic to throw a lot of heat my way. You have been trying to run things all game and you have used bad logic to point at me, Mr. Wed, and Blade. That makes me trust you very little.

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1300693)

I actually was starting to distrust St.Cronin based mainly on him still being around. He was an active player without any lynching heat on him trying to drive people to logical methods of voting (whether you agreed with his logic or not, he applied a very detailed and thought out reasons for why he felt we should do what they are doing.)

That is the exact type of player that I would expect to be night killed, so if he was still around much longer I likely would have started to get suspicious of him.

Now that we know what we do about the day 2 vote between Lathum and Chief we know it was villager vs villager run off. Its pretty funny though that Tyrith predicted St.Cronin's death in a pool of blood last night.

I'm wondering if there is any value in looking at the people who have been hiding their votes somewhat. Something like Brian's voting pattern jumps out at me. Day one vote for Spleen (with late jump to Scoobz after he was already surely lynched), day 2 vote for Lathum and day 3 vote for Tyrith.

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1300792)

Oh Good grief Blade, get over the persecuted act already. In the quote you posted, you can very clearly see I was refering to Brian's voting patterns and have followed it up with discussion on him. What in your mind could you possibly think that post had anything whatsoever to do with you?

Oh I forgot, every one of my posts is a subtle hint to try to get you lynched.

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1300832)

Well to get back to the point i was -trying- to make before that intermission...

I do find your moves suspicious so far. The late meaningless move onto a bad guy, followed by the insistence the next day that no bad guys could possibly have known he was bad when in fact it hasn't been proved one way or another.

The next two days managing to stay off of the person being lynched (day 2 when it was villager vs villager) and yesterday when it was villager vs unknown are a little less suspicious, but just adds to what i saw on day 1.

In this game the bad guys don't necessarily know who all the other bad guys are, but they just know who isn't on their team.

Originally Posted by Alan T (Post 1300870)

I was debating something similar. One of my thoughts was someone who voted for Lathum day 2, and once he fell out of the lynch spotlight went ahead and night killed him last night. My thinking is the Lathum kill was Saruman's "assassination" kill action and that once again drew me to thinking about people who wern't fond of killing Scoobz on night1.

This thinking is what actually led me to BrianD in looking at voting patterns this morning, but ntndeacon follows the same pattern. Day 1 Swaggs, day 2 Lathum. Mr. Wednesday also seems to fit the pattern some too. (which you can see where I based my immediate distrust list from.)

I voted ntndeacon yesterday due to him being super under the radar, and the fact he seems to fit in the profile that I can invision a bad guy in, I wouldn't have a problem voting for him again today. (That and the contribution he made after I voted for him yesterday was mostly rehashing already stated arguements).

Originally Posted by Tyrith (Post 1301034)

Thinking about day 1...it's possible, although I suspect not terribly likely, that scoobz was unaffiliated and they knew who he was. Something like the master/apprentice scenario from the sith game, where they could bring him to their side and knew his identify, but he was blind.

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday (Post 1301092)

I was tying him into past games where there was the "sorceror" role (on the side of the bad guys but functioned like a good guy) or a "designated conversion target" role.

Originally Posted by Tyrith (Post 1301090)

Is this game going to be defined by constant, incessant bickering? We might have to start killing people just to get some peace and quiet in here!