90 replies to this topic

[Fugazi]

Tamamono, on 30 January 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

Although Nicholas was very hesitant to vote for him, and was even defending him at one point. That's a perfect position for a scum to be in, because it makes them look pro-town when the person they defend comes up as town. I wonder...

Keep wondering. We all knew that Hans could be confused at times, yet never thought twice about it. He probably gave up under the pressure and didn't manage to defend himself properly. I don't blame William who I trust and who is trying hard to uncover the last Cultists, he was probably just a bit too excited at Hans' apparent slip-up. But in the general rush to send Hans to Imhotep, the scum had no problem whatsoever to merge in the bandwagon. Could we be more careful today, please?

Eskallon, on 30 January 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Go back and look at what people have said, look at every single one of their posts over the six days, write it all down somewhere, and then communicate with us. I am determined that if we try hard then we can snap a cultist today but it will take a lot of hard work and many hours of work.

That's the spirit! Mehmet would have been proud of you.

[Rufus]

MOD NOTE

Erratum

Yesterday's final vote tally should have read:

Hans Gubernaculum (Bob):  14 votes  (CorneliusMurdock, KielDaMan, Zepher, fhomess, ADHO, Scubacarrot, Sandy, Cecilie, Professor Flitwick, Eskallon, Tamamono, Fugazi, Wuntin, WhiteFang)

My apologies.  

[Eskallon]

I quickly re-read the day 5 accusations. While William made the argument it stands out to me that Scuba was a big part of it still. Nothing groundbreaking but something to watch out for, should the need of that particular suspicion to arise.

Rufus, on 30 January 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

MOD NOTE
Hans Gubernaculum (Bob):  14 votes  (CorneliusMurdock, KielDaMan, Zepher, fhomess, ADHO, Scubacarrot, Sandy, Cecilie, Professor Flitwick, Eskallon, Tamamono, Fugazi, Wuntin, WhiteFang)

Ah that makes better sense, so we all voted then.

Not much to go on but the order then. Nothing seems directly strange to me but I guess after I am done collecting all 5 days result tallys it might make better sense.

[Scubacarrot]

Eskallon, on 30 January 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

I quickly re-read the day 5 accusations. While William made the argument it stands out to me that Scuba was a big part of it still. Nothing groundbreaking but something to watch out for, should the need of that particular suspicion to arise.



Ah that makes better sense, so we all voted then.

Not much to go on but the order then. Nothing seems directly strange to me but I guess after I am done collecting all 5 days result tallys it might make better sense.

I was a big part of what?

[Eskallon]

Scubacarrot, on 30 January 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

I was a big part of what?

The case against Bob, I was just mentioning you felt very strongly about his allegiance.

[Scubacarrot]

Eskallon, on 30 January 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

The case against Bob, I was just mentioning you felt very strongly about his allegiance.

You may realise that was only on the first part of the day, after my last post that time, I got some more info, and stopped going for him.

[Professor Flitwick]

Eskallon, on 30 January 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

I would like to hear from Roger a bit more though, it seems he has been reluctant to post more about his role that could be key to sussing out liars among the group. Any luck Roger? Oh and I don't want virgin names before some idiot points that out.

Bhaw? What more could I offer besides names, Lieutenant? Suffice to say, I have told the people I trust.

[Tamamono]

Professor Flitwick, on 30 January 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

Bhaw? What more could I offer besides names, Lieutenant? Suffice to say, I have told the people I trust.

Well, it would be nice if you would actually participate. I don't have anything to offer either, but I still participate tot he best of my abilities and try to find the cultists. I think what Big Butthole is asking is for you to try to be more active in the discussion.

[Eskallon]

Scubacarrot, on 30 January 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

You may realise that was only on the first part of the day, after my last post that time, I got some more info, and stopped going for him.

Its not an attack or case as such on you my friend, just a little note, don't take it badly or in the wrong way.

Tamamono, on 30 January 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Well, it would be nice if you would actually participate. I don't have anything to offer either, but I still participate tot he best of my abilities and try to find the cultists. I think what Big Butthole is asking is for you to try to be more active in the discussion.

[Scubacarrot]

Eskallon, on 30 January 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Its not an attack or case as such on you my friend, just a little note, don't take it badly or in the wrong way.

It wasnt taken that way

[KielDaMan]

It sucks that we had lost both a virgin in Hans (damn why did you have to act scummy? ) and Ms. Balls (who even if not a virgin is still one of us Campies).

Now what strikes me the most is the "failed kill" of the Cultists on Ms. Balls. It puzzles me why the Cultists wouldn't kill someone who has claimed Virgin publicly (Sheila and Jennifer) and "take a chance" on someone who has not claimed anything publicly? Now this is where the interesting part goes, Ms. Balls told me that he trusted me yesterday but claimed Virgin to me :

fhomess, on 27 January 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

I'm actually a virgin. I was investigated night 2 because of my private claim to Def.

Note: Some parts of the private message have been deliberately omitted to preserve some vital info.

Additionally, I know of two other people (but there are probably more?) who "confirmed" Ms. Ball's Virginity to me.

So it's either:

a.) 'Those two people' are Cultists and Ms. Balls got 'them' fooled by pretending to be a Virgin, which resulted in a worthy 'pro-Campies' sacrifice of herself (bless your soul Ms. Balls )

or

b.) 'Those two' and Ms. Balls deliberately told me that she's a Virgin for some strange reason even if they said they 'trusted me'.

I hope it would be the former case, but I still have to confer these with some people privately...

[KielDaMan]

KielDaMan, on 31 January 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

I hope it would be the former case, but I still have to confer these with some people privately...

Things are getting clearer privately... Stay tuned fellow Campies... The Legacy of Mehmet will live on...

[CorneliusMurdock]

Okay.  Here's how things are.  Bluto has tried to investigate Nicholas Hoare on nights three and four.  He was unable to get a result either night.  Not blocked, unable to get a result.  

Nicholas, as most of you know, was somewhat trusted by Mehmet early on.  This because Nicholas came to him with a action claim.  Nicholas is Magilla Gorilla, supposedly a bodyguard who dies if he protects a Cultist. Nicholas and I, in fact, shared a private discussion with Mehmet for days.  Most of what I knew before Mehmet died, Nicholas also knows.  

Mehmet, however, started to question Nicholas' loyalties after the first investigation failure.  That's why Mehmet asked Bluto to try again the next night and why Mehmet started a discussion separate from Nicholas'.

When I received news of Bluto's failure to get a result again the night Mehmet died, I was highly suspicious.  You will all agree that Nicholas' behavior was a bit odd yesterday in thread.  I've also heard from several contacts that he has been talking to people trying to sow discord among us.  This is why I asked The Thing to block him last night and why I asked Batman to kill him.  

You'll notice, though, that Nicholas is still with us today.  Both The Thing and Batman had the same trouble that Bluto had the previous nights.  They were unable to perform their actions on him.  Not blocked, we know how the scum block, but unable to perform their actions.  

By claiming protector, Nicholas was in the unique position of knowing who was unprotected each night.  You'll notice that, even with two claimed protectors, Goofy's cloak, and a blocker, the Cultists never failed to kill one of us every night.  He also knew who some of the Virgins were since he was asked to protect them.  I'm also convinced that Nicholas' knowledge of Batman trying to kill Betty on night 3 was the reason he was unsuccessful and we had to lynch her the next day instead.

So when the time comes, I'm asking my fellow Innocents to vote off Nicholas Hoare.  Thanks for sticking with me through this long post.

[Sandy]

I'm as frustrated at Hans as I'm at the whole camp. We made a mistake in convicting him, of course I admit that, but Hans did not really try to defend himself like a virgin should have. I know I fought with my teeth and claws when I was about to get lynched on Day 2, Hans just seemed not to even bother. It's most important that we virgins play this game of life for the whole team, as we are the most valuable pieces in it.

Now what we're hearing about Nicholas's apparent immunity to night actions is worrying. But couldn't he also be a neutral player?

I'm also wondering why the cultists did not go after claimed virgins such as myself or Sheila. It might've been that Ophelia was just talking to a wrong person...

I know we shouldn't take the pictures as much of a hint, but I can't help to wonder what the blank scroll that was dropped with Ophelia is all about. Are night actions presented by scrolls, perhaps? None of the others have dropped a scroll after being fed to the statue, though...

Any theories?

[WhiteFang]

I know I have been late to the party and I am also aware of the wrong conviction which we had committed earlier. I may not look active but I am also hoping to put together the clues that I had gotten in private with my trusty allies.

As mentioned above, William's info with regards to Nicholas of being unable to investigate by the investigator is truly worrisome. It is no coincidence and for sure it wasn't blocked either. There can be 2 kind of possibilities of one being immune to night actions including investigation is one being the elusive ninja which may or may not equate as the role, "godfather" or can be someone working as the townie. Since Nicholas claims as a protector, I find it very hard to believe that a protector can have such invincible passive night action role.

Right now, I am incline towards Williams bold claim towards Nicholas.

[KielDaMan]

CorneliusMurdock, on 31 January 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

So when the time comes, I'm asking my fellow Innocents to vote off Nicholas Hoare. Thanks for sticking with me through this long post.

Two failed investigations? A failed block and an unsuccessful vigilante kill? That certainly reeks of scum smell to me... Let me share with you once again a similar situation that occurred from one of my favorite books called Gotham City Mafia where a certain character wearing a black mask was apparently "immune" to night actions - he was investigated twice but failed, vig tried to kill him but failed. His seemingly "immunity to night actions" ultimately made the Townies suspicious of him and decided to vote him out, and turned out he was the last of the scumbags and that eventually won it for the Town. Nicholas' apparent night action immunity is eerily similar to that, and I seriously doubt why an Innocent Campie would be 'that powerful'.

Secondly, claiming a protector role is one of the easiest a scum could make, especially since they could easily and readily 'prove their action results' believable by simply having his scum team avoid killing the 'protected' target.

And yesterday's apparent 'defending' of Hans from the lynch? It was yet another perfect opportunity for the Nicholas to "look Innocent" by defending someone who they know is an Innocent all along.

Are these evidences still shaky for you Nicholas? I know very well that you will fight your way through this, but I believe in the collective resolve of the rest of the Innocents (who by the way you branded as 'Sheep' yesterday) that they will do the RIGHT THING and never waste the sacrifices made by Mehmet, Patrick, and the rest of the Innocent Campies you've killed for your stupid Cult.

When the voting starts, I know where my vote is going.

[Scubacarrot]

If he really was immune to a night kill and two investigations, it is trouble. He could be third party or scum, but since he never told anyone, even people that trusted him, that he was 3rd party, I think scum is actually the likely option. I am going to follow William's judgement once again, and hope there is no made up stuff in this accusation. This evidence seems pretty solid.

[Cecilie]

Nicholas should have a really good explanation to why all night actions seem to fail on him... 3 nights in a row, and by 3 different people! I seriously doubt an Innocent campie is that well shielded.

[Tamamono]

What? Could Nicholas be immune to night actions? I suppose I can understand a townie being immune to kills or blocks or something, but they definitely would have been informed of their immunity at the start of the ordeal. Also, no innocent would need to be immune to investigation. I, much like Gordon, remember a Batman comic I once read in which a dashingly handsome, bald investigator attempted to investigate a certain mask-obsessed mob boss but was unable to get a result. The criminals lynched that mob boss, and, lo and behold, he was an agent.

I've been rather suspicious of Nicholas for a couple of days now, but there's been nothing remarkable in his behavior. He stays fairly active, yet never very helpful, and a lot of his posts consist of discreetly pointing fingers at others.

Also, he might have actually been telling the truth about his protector action (except of the weak doctor part), because sometimes scum teams have protectors/bodyguards. It would be in Nicholas' best interests to get an in with the townies, but lying about an action would look really bad if he was tracked or something. I'd put money on Nicholas being the cultist protector.

[Fugazi]

Right, so this is what I get in return for protecting you night after night, William. If you really wanted to test my claim, you could have asked me to protect someone actually suspicious instead of you or the proven Virgins.

Anyway, I was told about the failure of the investigator to get a reading on me two nights in a row. I also happen to have been 'blocked' in the same way myself on nights 3 and 5. What William forgot to mention is that when the vigilante failed to kill Betty Swallocks, he was obviously not targetting me. Yet the same night the investigator also failed. So two scum players with night immunity, right? Sure.

Then what about night 2, when I was asked to protect you? The tracker saw me protect you, he was perfectly able to do it and you didn't die. So one night I have immunity, the other I don't? Right. Your evidence doesn't add up I'm afraid.

I can't disprove that the vigilante and blocker's actions have failed on me. I have no idea and it could be true, I'm sure you wouldn't have made up those results, William. In any case, anyone who could say otherwise is probably aware of your plan so it's pointless for me to try and verify your claims.

I think it is much more likely that the scum have an action allowing them to block a number of Campies every night. They have caught on our protectors, investigator and vigilante and they are blocking them whenever it is possible. Before you say that such an action is ridiculous or unbalanced, let me remind you that the town has (had) three protective actions and a number (that I will not reveal but that William is well aware of) of investigative actions. Balancing those actions with a wide spectrum block is not at all far-fetched in my opinion.


Since you mention that I was privy to confidential information from my contact with Mehmet, let me shed some light on that interaction. You are well aware that Mehmet used nicknames and never revealed who actually held a specific action. So knowing about Mehmet's plans doesn't mean that I could do anything about it. Even more, there are many pieces of information that I could have used had I been a Cultist that obviously the Cultists didn't know about.

Examples? William is aware that the vigilante was asked to stay home on night 1 so that the Cultists think the one they blocked (Penelope) was the vig. A couple of days later when the Cultists thought that Betty was in danger, Penelope was killed. Not the real vigilante but the make-believe vigilante, Penelope. Mehmet had informed us that Penelope was not the vig, yet the Cultists didn't have that information. It was a vital piece of intelligence the absence of which obviously set them back in their plans, and if I had been a Cultist I would never have risked the life of one of my own on the grounds of (possibly) sparking some suspicion.

More examples? The night Mehmet died, he made it abundantly clear in private that he would be protected by the mirror cloak. I don't know about you, but if I had been a Cultist I would have advised to wait until he wouldn't be protected before killing him, or actually kill him a day earlier when he effectively wasn't protected. Why take a chance and risk the kill being reflected to the killer? And don't tell me that the Cultists knew that the cloak wouldn't work that night -- not even the cloak protector himself understood how the cloak worked exactly, so don't give too much credit to the Cultists!

I can find more examples of why I can't be scum. Our life here would have played quite differently.

Oh, and should I add that the 'way' I was blocked on night 3 is identical to the way the investigator and vigilante were blocked on the same night? And other Campies on following nights? Nobody told me how they were blocked before I was asked, yet my claim matched theirs perfectly. Would a Cultist know what would be the precise result of their action?

CorneliusMurdock, on 31 January 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

I've also heard from several contacts that he has been talking to people trying to sow discord among us.

An unsubstantiated claim. Give me names, quotes. I won't take your word for evidence even though I trust you by virtue of my action. Yesterday was proof enough that you can make up what evidence you don't have. What does 'sowing discord' means to you? Is sharing suspicions sowing discord? In which case, every Campie here is guilty. Every Campie I have had the chance to talk to has shared suspicions with me. Is that sowing discord too?

Sandy, on 31 January 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Now what we're hearing about Nicholas's apparent immunity to night actions is worrying. But couldn't he also be a neutral player?

I'm not immune, and I'm not neutral. I would know. It's obvious that the scum would keep the block on me to build up suspicion after the investigator failed the first time.

Sandy, on 31 January 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

I'm also wondering why the cultists did not go after claimed virgins such as myself or Sheila. It might've been that Ophelia was just talking to a wrong person...

Or because claimed Virgins were obvious candidates for protection.

KielDaMan, on 31 January 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

And yesterday's apparent 'defending' of Hans from the lynch? It was yet another perfect opportunity for the Nicholas to "look Innocent" by defending someone who they know is an Innocent all along.

I certainly look more scummy that you who fought very hard to get rid of Hans. Notwithstanding the fact that you have been cleared of suspicion -- even thought no night action is completely fool-proof -- I find your dismissive attitude to what happened yesterday disconcerting.

[Pandora]

Day Six Interlude

The day wears on, and the Campies are beginning to find the heat and claustrophobia getting to them.  Some have become so distracted that they cannot help but reference fictional comics that haven't even been written yet.  Ishaq snores loudly from his recumbent position while Hugh decides that finding a way to increase the blood flow to his brain will help his analysis of the situation.



Ossie and Is continue to watch their unexpected guests, and listen to their discussions...

You may now vote.  You have 48 hours to reach a conviction.

[Cecilie]

Fugazi, on 31 January 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Right, so this is what I get in return for protecting you night after night, William. If you really wanted to test my claim, you could have asked me to protect someone actually suspicious instead of you or the proven Virgins.

And who might that be? It's not like there are very many very suspicious people left. You are the most suspicious at this point.

Fugazi, on 31 January 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Anyway, I was told about the failure of the investigator to get a reading on me two nights in a row. I also happen to have been 'blocked' in the same way myself on nights 3 and 5. What William forgot to mention is that when the vigilante failed to kill Betty Swallocks, he was obviously not targetting me. Yet the same night the investigator also failed. So two scum players with night immunity, right? Sure.
[...]
I think it is much more likely that the scum have an action allowing them to block a number of Campies every night. They have caught on our protectors, investigator and vigilante and they are blocking them whenever it is possible. Before you say that such an action is ridiculous or unbalanced, let me remind you that the town has (had) three protective actions and a number (that I will not reveal but that William is well aware of) of investigative actions. Balancing those actions with a wide spectrum block is not at all far-fetched in my opinion.

You're forgetting something. Night 3, three people claimed to be unsuccessful. The investigator, the vigilante, and you. Night 5, same thing, three people claimed to be unsuccessful. The blocker, the vigilante, and you. But night 4, only one person claimed to be unsuccessful. The investigator. If there was a wide spectrum block, it would cover three people at once then it would seem, and if as you say, the cultists has caught on to who has night actions, why was only one person unsuccessful night 4, and that person just happens to be the one targetting you?

Fugazi, on 31 January 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Then what about night 2, when I was asked to protect you? The tracker saw me protect you, he was perfectly able to do it and you didn't die. So one night I have immunity, the other I don't? Right. Your evidence doesn't add up I'm afraid.

The tracker has never claimed to be unsuccessful in the same way. However, the tracker was also blocked on night 3, but with a normal block. Maybe your immunity doesn't work on the tracking action?

[Fugazi]

Cecilie, on 31 January 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

And who might that be? It's not like there are very many very suspicious people left. You are the most suspicious at this point.

I don't mean now. There were occasions to verify my role claim every night for 5 nights.

Cecilie, on 31 January 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

You're forgetting something. Night 3, three people claimed to be unsuccessful. The investigator, the vigilante, and you. Night 5, same thing, three people claimed to be unsuccessful. The blocker, the vigilante, and you. But night 4, only one person claimed to be unsuccessful. The investigator. If there was a wide spectrum block, it would cover three people at once then it would seem, and if as you say, the cultists has caught on to who has night actions, why was only one person unsuccessful night 4, and that person just happens to be the one targetting you?

I don't know, there are many possible explanations. A limited number of shots, Virgins blocked by mistake, who knows. I'm sure than in a couple of days when this ordeal is over everything will make much more sense.

Cecilie, on 31 January 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

The tracker has never claimed to be unsuccessful in the same way. However, the tracker was also blocked on night 3, but with a normal block. Maybe your immunity doesn't work on the tracking action?

Why would I be immune to investigation, killing, blocking but not tracking? It seems unneccessarily complicated to me.

[Cecilie]

Fugazi, on 31 January 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

I don't mean now. There were occasions to verify my role claim every night for 5 nights.

So asking you to protect someone suspicious just to test your claim, knowing it could kill you if you were telling the truth is ok, but lynching you now because we can't check you at night and find that highly suspicious is not ok?

The way I see it, the only way we can get some answers about this is to feed you to Imhotep. At least we know we won't be sacrificing a virgin

So I will Vote: Nicholas Hoare (Fugazi)

[Fugazi]

Cecilie, on 31 January 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

So asking you to protect someone suspicious just to test your claim, knowing it could kill you if you were telling the truth is ok, but lynching you now because we can't check you at night and find that highly suspicious is not ok?

Quite different. If I die protecting a Scum, you will have lost me but found a Scum. The reason I claimed to Mehmet in the first place was so that someone knew who I was about to protect so the town would understand the reason of my death. Besides, the gods had probably prepared a special death for me that would make it obvious it was not due to the Cultists. On the other hand, lynching me will only rid you of a protector. No gain there. You will be much wiser of course, just like you were this morning when you realised that Hans was a Virgin.