fhomess

I would just like to point out one more thing that's been bothering me since I don't want anyone to get confused. Animals are not people, too. That's why we eat them.

Seems a bit silly to me that you would've stolen someone who had the same lunch as you. The other two lunches were more dangerous to scum since they revealed information about night actions. I was actually surprised that everyone didn't use their lunch when the whole lunch concept was revealed publicly on day 2. At that point, it was clear who had what, and scum would've been able to steal the useful town ones. 　 Also, Zepher: you got caught by the investigator, but you also told me you had WBD's lunch. That was a mistake. WBD was the only one with an Orange. You didn't need to tell me you had any lunches beyond your own. Obviously, you were already caught at that point, so it's moot, but just a suggestion. Personally, I think that's a bit too complicated for town to be expected to piece together. It didn't make a lot of sense to me that town would re-flavor cop someone with a lunch on a subsequent night and expect to get something different. My investigation was pretty weak. It was more of a vanilla/night action claim role cop type of thing. I didn't have any insight into alignment or what players were doing if they went out. I also couldn't be sure if my target had been blocked or had a day action. My targets were Captain Genaro and Scuba, both stayed in, although the wording of my result was different. NIght 3 would've been Darth Potato. 　 As for me, I sought out all the lunches because my role was only good for confirming if a player used a night action, and I didn't want to target people who were using their lunch at night, as that would be a way my results would not give the information I wanted. 　 What was the point of telling Scuba about DP, but not DP about Scuba? That seems odd to me. If I was Scuba, the first thing I'd do is tell DP that I'm on the team and that I show up as town to investigators, and then DP can communicate everything back to the rest of the team. 　 Ultimately, I think all sides in this game had a lot of power. The cult's ability to pass along their leader status was huge and I agree largely with Def's opinion that it's a rather unexpected inheritance. The town had all sorts of different investigation and avoidance skills. It was obvious to me that we weren't up against a basic scum team. Scum had some nice abilities, too, although, IMO, they were easily in the weakest position at the start. 　 I didn't follow as closely after my death due to the holidays, but this was very much a fun game, with some innovative ideas and the comicbook style presentation was fantastic.

Thanks for letting me play! Go Town!

Timely... I just pulled Ghostbusters out again the other night!

There's no penalty for not voting for Shadell. If you think someone else is scummy, you can always vote for them instead.

Perhaps the scum that we're hunting is, in fact, a cult of some sort. That would be possible, but in that case, I wouldn't believe for a second that anyone would have the ability to single-handedly kill them all with one blow. As for the bulletproof vests, to our knowledge at this point, they were only handed out to people who forgot their lunch. Which means that we have just Shadell and Oscar who ought to have them.

I think we can agree that she is immune to blocks based on what we know. Hiding isn't potentially negative for town. The hider clears everyone they hide behind, and convicts anyone they hide behind resulting in death (usually helps if they tell someone this). Unblockable has nothing to do with vig-killing. That's your next bullet point. We can't confirm this without wasting a vig kill. I don't particularly care if it's true or not, but claiming bulletproof is a way to manipulate any killing roles that might exist. Maybe she's trying to avoid a vig kill. Maybe she's trying to avoid being killed by scum (of course, there's no need for a townie to want to avoid being the target of the scum kill if they believe that scum kill will be unsuccessful - you want it in that case!). Maybe she's trying to avoid a serial killer. Or maybe she has been told that there's a particular target that can bypass her bulletproof vest, but they don't know that. In all of these cases, why claim just a single shot bulletproof? TO put us at ease that she's really not as all-powerful as her full claim suggests. This is pretty much unconfirmable until she finds a cult leader. This is a manipulative claim, too. It's designed to strike fear into the weakhearted who don't have the stomach for the hard work of finding scum. The idea that there's a cult out there who is recruiting people to them is scary to townies, as it should be, but those of us who panic over such news need to respect the idea that we can not possibly be left with just a single weapon against said cult. While Shadell hasn't explicitly stated that is the case, she's is emphasizing the idea that she's our only hope. She's not. We have other ways of finding them if she dies and was telling the truth. At the very least, her death would give us clarity on whether or not we really are up against a cult. This is important because this is not how a hider is supposed to work. A hider is supposed to be untargetable while hiding. Shadell claims that her skill allows her to get past the hiding. TO WHAT EFFECT? If she's looking for a cult leader, there's no reason for her to have a special ability to find the hider. It's completely unneccesary. There is no reason for her to have this skill unless... the cult leader can also hide. Anyone think that's likely? In addition, she claims to have gotten a Town result on the hider. This doesn't make any sense either. Why would she not simply get a "not-cult leader" result? She's getting more information than she should. Put all this together... you've got a picture of someone trying to scare us into keeping her alive for one more night. These are fear tactics and a ridiculous role claim. However, most importantly, there's NO WAY to confirm any of her story without lynching her or her proving to us there's a cult leader by finding that person. I'm not prepared to let her run free while we wait for that to potentially never happen. We lynch her now, we know for sure.

Thank you. Julia does seem rather anal-retentive, no? Vote: Shadell (Shadows)

I have a serious problem with two bulletproof vests belonging to townies. It seems to me that would be impossible. Shadell's role claim is, quite honestly, a bit ridiculous. If Shadell flips town, I will personally lead the crusade against Oscar for the very reason I stated in the first sentence. Vote: Shadel (Shadows) I'd also like to throw out the possibility that the hider isn't town, or isn't really a hider at all. For what reason do we trust this person?

I've made this point to someone in private, but I have serious misgivings about the presence of so many ways to avoid being killed by the scum. Think about it, we have a hider and two bulletproof vests. That means at least three people are able to avoid being killed based on their own abilities. In addition, we have a jailkeeper who was able to protect someone. Want to start thinking about investigations that we supposedly have? We have a day investigator who gives alignment. We have a hider who's ability to avoid being killed has the side effect of confirming everyone they hide behind. We have lunches that reveal info about people's roles. We have other lunches that let us see who is being targetted. We've supposedly got two people looking for their "bro", which would be a way of confirming each other. All of these roles must have some form of balance on the scum side. I would expect the scum to have some rather complicated ways of avoiding being killed themselves. Unfortunately, Shadell fits that model pretty well.

Not. A. Chance. I'm sorry, but no. Let's lynch Scooter. An inability to be blocked in the environment we seem to be operating in strikes me as a scum ability. If we really have investigators and all these lunches and a jailkeeper who can have part of his action work... well to me, it all adds up to being very favorable to Scooter. I wouldn't be surprised that the scum would have some powerful roles with modifiers if we have as many tools at our disposal as we seem to. Just to clarify, I don't think Scooter is lying. I just think Scooter is scum.

Ooh, a play! The big city truly IS a wonderful place! Except for the dogs here. They creep me out. As for this play, Oscar, it seems you're pretty well convinced that Scooter is a liar. So... are you still waiting for Scooter to give you a plausible explanation in private or are you expecting that publicly? Either way, that seems like a claim that is designed to explain the lack of night kills.

I tend to agree that it doesn't much matter if Walter was blocked straight or blocked and protected. Either way, he was blocked. I'm very curious if there's another blocker out there who blocked someone else, but at this point, they seem to be keeping quiet about it or have no one they trust enough to share that with. If you're out there and a town blocker, I think you owe it to the town to let us know who you blocked in some way as that would be another viable candidate under the same criteria that puts the target on Walter. Walter, am I correct that you are now claiming vanilla? You seem to be implying that. As for my vote, I want to throw out this one: Vote Mike (Bob) The primary reasoning for this is that I don't like the fact that he gave his lunch to Oscar on day 1 with no reason and despite being called out on it earlier in the day, he's failed to respond to it satisfactorily. He's also been rather terse with several comments and not entirely paying attention.

Sorry, nothing to see there. Misunderstood joke and we've cleared it over. If I really wanted to accuse Oscar of being a scummy liar, I'd have brought something substantial forward in public. I'm with those that thinks the day killer is actually a killer of some sort and not an act of some higher power. Seriously, what kind of sadistic higher power would do such a thing?

Avoiding the issue that you're not accurately responding to what was said ... why not? Why don't you believe Penny's lunch was stolen? You seem like you're jumping to the conclusions you want to see.

How's it going? Thanks for summarizing the day for us! Hmm... not sure how I got that then. I can't find it now, either. Or they're Trisha.

Oscar, how do you know it was Mike that gave you the cookies and do you have any idea why Mike would give you cookies? It just strikes me as silly to give your lunch to someone you have no reason to trust yet. Almost as if Mike is trying to become your friend. Ah... I have a note from yesterday that Dansmith also claimed not to have brought a lunch. I can't blame him since he has no opposable thumbs, but that would put a minimum of two in the Apple category without lunches.

Jimmy and Penny strike me as rather strange lunch steal targets. Neither had claimed a lunch yesterday. I suppose it would have been a good way to avoid detection perhaps. Maybe lunches that steal lunches are merely a way of adding some confusion to the mix. Daisy, were you eating your lunch at night or during the day when you saw this other person stroking Oscar's quills? I assume at night from what you said, but we always eat lunch during the day back at my ranch.

The only way the scum killing Zara makes any sense would be if they had already found out information about Zara that led them to believe Zara was a threat to them. Given how much Zara contributed, I doubt they would've used any sort of day investigation on Zara. They can't have expected to be accurately day-watched or whatever other day actions anyone might have, so it strikes me as particularly odd that Jimmy is holding it against anyone who puts Zara's death on the scum very far near the bottom of likeliness. By the way, stealing lunch seems very anti-townie. It also doesn't strike me as a lunch action, so that might be one of the scum skills. Jimmy, was there any detail given about how or when your lunch was stolen? Given that you didn't publicly state you had lunch yesterday, and a few others did state that, I'm surprised it was YOUR lunch that was stolen.

7 by Rumble Strike - 1 pt 31 by Artanis - 1 pt 32 by toutouille - 1 pt

The 50 kg version comes with 1 randomly inserted real hobbit.

1 by Lego Maniac - 2 points 11 by whataboutlego - 1 point

6 By Plissken - 1 point 7 By Kristel - 1 point 9 By Captain Nemo - 1 point

I believe I was thinking of this: In relation to this exchange: I don't think that would work. It wouldn't be lying or telling the truth since the person doesn't really know, would it? I'm not sure, it's an odd role I haven't dealt with before. Which sounds a bit like the suggestion that triggered my response. I guess I attributed Carl's idea as having its origins in yours. Anyway, Dansmith disagreed and pointed out the fallacy this time. I suppose you're right that "not a single person disagreed", as Dansmith is not a person. No, but the discussions surrounding this are interesting. I feel just fine, so you're welcome to vote for whoever you want. Why Dansmith? I don't particularly agree with his thoughts but he's explained them. Daisy's habit of being difficult to work with doesn't lend itself to avoiding votes. Daisy admitted a mistake? Now THAT is suspicious! :P Sorry... should have read, Carl's response to Oscar's idea... too many people referring to each other.

Well this is getting REALLY exciting! Does this type of thing always happen in Heartlake? Two horses were killed and now everyone's getting all uppity about a lie detector. We never have things like this happen out in the country. Given what Fred told us, and the internet link he shared with us, I don't think the idea is that ridiculous. We don't know how it works exactly, but the idea that you're so quick to disregard even the possibility suggests to me you're not paying attention and not willing to think about possibilities. As they say on my ranch, there's always something new under the sun! What? Zara's made the most sense in the shortest time? Zara had very little to say, so if that's what you mean by the shortest amount of time, then I agree, but I don't think Zara made all that much sense one way or the other. You don't seem to be thinking very hard either. Trisha's story was not brought forward to remain seen as innocent. She came out with it before any of us townies could have had strong opinions one way or the other on her. To me, it seemed like a bit of a silly idea if she's scum. I don't really understand this. Would you think it LESS likely that Trisha was scum if she was more experienced, made up a lie detector story, and then backtracked? Scum often feign confusion. You've proposed your interlocking truths idea a couple of times now, and each time it's been pointed out that it would not work properly. Even if the lie detector was really a truth detector, a long string of truths that comes back as false doesn't tell us which area is false. We would want certainty of the result, and your suggestion would result in a confusing result. Now you're defending Daisy and avoiding a vote. If all you want is answers, then casting the 9th vote is a mite excessive. If you think she's scum, then it's perfectly reasonable. I think that Trisha is suspicious, but I am currently more concerneed about Walter's behavior base on the above comments. Trisha has enough votes for now and there is still plenty of time. I will Vote: Walter (Waterbrick Down)