Yzalirk

You mean like this? I'm not sure how Chester could be mislead by a hypothetical situation. I haven't seen Jack claiming to know who the vigilante is or anyone doing so. Chester has only made four posts in this entire day which have just be unhelpful and misleading.

If you take a look at Sammy's post, I'm apparently "jumping". I'm just sitting down and looking back for information I can use against people.

I went back and took a look at some things Chester has said, which was not much. His posts didn't begin to start until page five where he says; His point about stumps giving out some information is alright, but I don't agree with it. Yes, stumps shouldn't give out ALL information (key word is all). Some information would at least be helpful to remaining Oaks. The codes were meant to mask roles with code words, which people dot different codes I'll assume, so how would Maples easily find out? Overall, Chester gave a pretty mediocre reasoning behind it but I can see the point he's trying to make. Then on page eight, which I believe is Chester's third post of the day is that. He was sleeping, so he couldn't get some posts up. Well he was then awake and still hardly contributed. Then he goes on to make an analysis based on meta-gaming. That's lazy and doesn't mean anything. If he really contributed, he would have made an analysis based on any of the three days prior, but nope. And Chester's fourth and last post of the day far is that. He's misinterpreted a hypothetical situation to try and push for a lynch against Nash. After this, Chester has not contributed since. If you ask me, he's trying to remain under the radar and hope that he doesn't screw up and make himself look bad. But it seems that not contributing is his enemy right now. I'm not ready to make a vote against Chester yet since I haven't given a further analysis into Nash or Jack yet. I'd also like to reread what they've all said on any of the days prior. Also, as I was posting this, I'd like to congratulate Sammy for sticking out like a sore thumb now! Well, at least to me. So would you prefer I just give up and let Maples win? That would be an easy win for you, wouldn't you say? And as of right now, there is no votes against Nash nor Jack, only one against Chester. So what exactly is it that I'm "jumping on"? I'll gladly keep this in mind, however, and not that you did not even attempt to answer a general question I had about Jack.

Unvote: Hazel Hazelnut (Goliath) I took some to reevaluate myself and don't want to go out like this, no. I'm not going to give up, screw that. Chester, Nash, or Jack, expect a case against you from me sometime soon. I'd also like to ask everyone - What is your opinion on Jack voting against me very fast? I'm just curious.

If I had, don't you think I would have presented it earlier? And for starters, Jack was quick to vote for me after I voted for myself with his reasoning basically being "I was going to present a case against him but he made it easier for me". I know that I changed my mind about Jack but seeing how fast he was to vote for me with practically no reason behind it making it almost look like a revenge vote. So I'd say that if I go, look at Jack a bit further, if you're not a Maple. As for Nash and Chester, just read thoroughly on what they've said and done, see if anything pings to you. I will try to help with that later if need be. Also, I believe that living trees cannot PM stumps. I thought that this was established already?

Oh and Simon, not even close.

Nope, not at all. I don't care if you vote for me or not, just go with your mind tells you to. I don't want you or anyone to feel bad. You may not openly admit, just like others, than all I've done was throw around petty accusations and have just made myself look like a fool. Besides, I can tell that you've wanted me gone for a while now anyway, so why reconsider now? You've questioned just about everything I've said. Adelaide, I would have voted for one of them but I just can't make a strong case against them. That makes me pretty useless, wouldn't you say? What makes the difference if I'm gone anyway? Jack, I was also hoping you might say something like that.

I've given some thought and I feel like I should just do this; Vote: Hazel Hazelnut (Goliath) I vote for myself for many reasons but I'll keep it short and sweet, for the most part. If you guys believe that I'm a perfect person to be lynched, I'm 100% perfectly fine with this. I'd rather be lynched and shown that I'm an Oak rather than being attacked by a Maple and janitored that way no one knows who I am. I'm a vanilla Oak and I'm not very helpful to the town. So why should I even be here? I'm surprised I even made it this far and even that is a goal for me. I'm somewhat sad about my decision here but, like I said, I'd rather go out knowing I was an Oak and hopefully that will open up the eyes of everyone here. I don't expect anyone to believe it, yet. Clearly I'm not as experienced as most people here but I don't want people to feel bad because of that. So please, don't. Sadly, you guys will be down a townie but I believe I'll just cause more harm than help. I have no reason to back up why I behaved like a bit of a dick other than I tried to help. I also probably won't be on for a bit but if I'm the lynchee for the day, Oaks, don't screw up. I'd say I'm probably the least helpful townie there is and I've only contributed to getting other Oaks lynched that I believed were Maples. Now it seems the tides have turned. This is probably going to be a decision I'll regret but it must be done, in my opinion. Now, I feel like I'm getting to the part where I just repeat myself. I don't want anyone to feel bad because it's inevitable that I will be gone and I'd rather have it sooner than later. And I will say it again, I don't want to be janitored by Maples, if I even can, that won't prove my innocence, that will just make me sad. And if I'm gone, take a look into those whom I hinted at suspecting or that I would suspect, like Nash or Chester.

Can you elaborate on what my play style is and how so terrible it is? Even I'm curious. And do YOU believe I'm a Maple? Don't ask what others think because you are clearly going with what others think, not yourself. And yes, I'm an Hazel, the most dangerous Maple you will ever encounter in your life! I'm actually wondering what will happen if I get lynched, what everyone will think of Nash and Waldorf. I also don't feel confident in my vote and I feel like I made a terrible judgment on Jack. Unvote: Jack Pine (mostlytechnic) If I took advantage, don't you think I wouldn't have taken the time to find some reasons? If I did take advantage of your vote, I would have just agreed to what you said and not found anything of my own. And Jack, thanks for the disrespect.

Oh yeah, I did not see that... Well it's up to the Stumps to come out and say that. It's possible they just don't care. Personally, I think Jack is excusing the behavior since he did claim to have sent everyone codes and I'm sure some codes must be BS to simply confuse both Oaks and Maples. I'm also not really sure how that would contribute to finding scum.

Nope, I'm not. The third comment I quoted is what really made me make my decision. Unless you completely ignored all that said and are in cahoots with Jack, than I can see why you wouldn't have a slight suspicion of him.

Vote: Jack Pine (mostlytechnic) I feel that Jack tries a little too hard to act innocent. Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe I'm not. He claims that he tries to be helpful with the thought of lazy = scum, which is not helpful and may contribute to the lynchings of the innocence. In what way does this help? Honestly, I have no frigging clue. He was also pretty worried about people starting a bandwagon on him on Day Three, so here's exhibit A; It's pretty self-explanatory, if you ask me. Why would an Oak be worried about a bandwagon on him for posting his codes when voting wasn't even open yet? It seems rather odd. Let's take a peek at exhibit B; That's an interesting thought. He's also claimed to have sent everyone codes as well, which I don't know about everyone else but yes, I did get codes from him. When Jack says this, though, could he try to pull some Tom Foolery here and try to confuse the town? The code system has been a bit confusing to some, which I agree, but Jack was the only one to bring this up. This shouldn't dictate that he's scum but perhaps he's tried to trick people. Also, why send codes to those you DON'T trust? And let's take a final look at exhibit C; I don't know if this has alerted anyone but it sure has to me. Firstly, who claimed to be the vigilante? I have seen anyone claim that responsibility and I think that the vigilante would have been an easy target had he/she done so. Jack has also clearly said that the vigilante should attack people who claim to be a vanilla and if worst comes to worst, a vanilla is dead. That is terrible for the town. It thins out the numbers of Oaks! Also, if I claimed right now that I were the vigilante, would you believe? I honestly wouldn't. Making a role claim doesn't necessarily mean it's true. That's why I vote for Jack. I can't say I'm proud or extremely confident in it but him wanting to kill of potential innocent townies is just a terrible idea. We are done enough townies as it is.

Actually, I don't know. I like the sound of that though for some reason. I could have sworn I've seen your name thrown around a few times as either a poke or suspicion but I looked back and saw the Nash seems a bit more popular than you since Adelaide voted against him two days in a row. That's gotta count for something. Also, for your information, any reason is better than none, must I tell you. Unless you'd prefer I don't justify my reason, which would make things so much easier.

It still worked out because you knew what I meant. I have been doing that but being unsure of who to vote for at the current time is a crime? Still, you, Waldorf, and the real Nash are of the few people with names that have been thrown around quite a bit. But yes, I will have my vote up with some reasoning behind it, as usual, eventually.

Alright genius, tell me, what makes thee Nash so high and mighty? You have been a person of interest to some people. So, what do you want me to contribute, all so powerful Nash? I will gladly contribute whatever it is that want if it pleases you. I'd also like you to find me saying that I blatantly said that Unknown Alignment means Neutral when I believe I asked rather than saying, directly, the two mean the same. And, tell me, when is it a crime to be unsure of who to vote for? Do you want me to vote for someone just for shits and giggles?

I'm honestly not sure who to vote for as of right now. I agree with you, Sue, about Peter and his only post seeming kind of "fluffy" in a way. The grammar in it also kind of scares me a little.

What do you mean by "ping"? I think that my view would be self-explanatory considering if "Alignment Unknown" meant Neutral - good or bad, we don't know. I find it odd that if Barry was the "Bomb" that he was janitored, like Alastair yet we never found out his role. Unless it's 100% confirmed that he was the "Bomb", than never mind. Why would Maples janoitor Barry if he were the "bomb", doesn't that seem like a waste?

If Barry was janitored, why? Is it possible that the Maples knew Barry was the "bomb" so they janitored him? Unless the the "Alignment Unknown" is supposed to be for a Neutral tree, than I think we might be viewing this the wrong way.

Awesome maps, NM! Mind if I send you a city I'd like to be added? If you don't mind, of course.

Let me go get it, hold on. This has some meta-gaming, does it not?

If I had "scumbuddies", I probably would. Also, nice meta-gaming by the way.

I'll have my things ordered by the end of today since one of the stores I planned to order from was closed because they were updating the inventory.

Alright, I've decided who I should vote for, Vote: Larry Larch (TheLazyChicken) To start off with, I was pretty suspicious of you on Day One for defending two people when there was no need for it at all and it was just unnecessary. You've also defended Bobby again and, apparently you didn't get it from Day One and Two, to not stick your neck out for people with no reason other than "he edited a post". He can defend himself, so let go of his hand. This leads me to believe that you are indeed a Maple. I'm sure Bobby has enough experience to know what he did and I think he may have said some things that he wanted to get rid of so you quickly jumped to his side and defended him. You, Larry, also are trying too hard to look like an Oak which doesn't convince me, sorry. You've also dodged some questions against you and, I'm not sure why. Even if you don't have a good answer, at least make an attempt and not just avoid the question, especially when under fire. You've also posted some fluff here and there to help avoid questions and to just keep up your activity here. I find that to be the least scummy thing about you though, if that makes you happy. That is why I'll have my vote set on you, Larry.

So would saying that whatever the stump receives from the tree, if at all, should just be considered void? I'm sure someone may have sent a stump a message simply because of the question.

Believe me, I plan to have reasons to support my vote. Come to think of it, I think I know who I want to vote for but I want to go back and reread over the things this person has said and point of any red flags that stick out to me. But I can't miss The Walking Dead, that's something I must watch. And Vicky, I'm certain you can read any messages you receive from trees but just not reply to them, unless the person is a stump than I don't see the problem. I love this statement. I think it's just a competitive thing that people, naturally, don't want to give up and I'm just like that and I hope it hasn't shown too much.