TrumpetKing

Well, I'm definitely surprised about Ragnvald, but we had to test the town block's reports. I won't lie, I expected to be killed by now, especially given that Pudding-Head seems so insistent that I'm scum, and likely to be one of- if not the- last scum member. I don't know what's trying to be accomplished by that. The lack of both kills is definitely interesting. I doubt the protector and blocker got their targets mixed up, accidentally blocking the vig or protecting his target, especially with Pudding-Head guiding them with what to do, so it makes me wonder if, given the lack of kills from the apparent scum team for several days, they're just left with a blocker. But since when have the scum not inherited the kill after the killer dies? It's very puzzling.

This is a random change of subject, I can admit, but I think we're rather overdue for a vote analysis. Day one is rather confusing. None of the deceased scum voted for Brand. But why? Did they want to avoid being on the bandwagon? Ragnvar's affiliation here seems to be the most important to know, as it could clue as in as to what the scum are doing should they turn up scum. Day two is a little bit harder to assess, given the nearly unanimous vote. The potential of three scum voting in a row could easily be coincidental, but should Ragnvar turn up scum, it could very well have turned out that the scum agreed to let Jarl do his thing, while they lynched him, and given the inexperience of the scum team so far, seeing them all vote so clumped together wouldn't necessarily be that surprising. Yet another near unanimous vote. The two scum seem to be all over the place, but Dragonfire hopped on the Mist bandwagon near the end of the middle, a good place for scum to hide. This would indicate that more people to look into would be myself, which has already been done several times, and Tarr/Jafri, who have both been rather quiet. However, Ragnvar turning up scum could also mean that the votes have been spread around this time, making the people at the beginning of the Mist vote (Who aren't already cleared) are worth looking into as well. Day 4 gives us less to work with, but Dar's vote at the beginning would have been fishier had he not been killed by now. Once again, Ragnvar's vote would give us a better idea of how the scum - should he turn up scum - are voting. While unanimous, this vote is the one that sticks out to me in particular. Ragnvar does still seem to be the key in possible scum voting patterns, but Dar voted for Tarr sticks out to me quite heavily. Tarr has been pretty scummy himself, or has at least gotten some scrutiny, and this could be a very easy bus situation to make Tarr appear to be town. Additionally, since Day 2, Tarr has been consistently around the middle area of the lynch voting, which doesn't make himself look better. Combined with Lambi's vote for Tarr on Day 1, which could also be seen as some sort of bus maneuver without committing to the Brand lynch, and I'm starting to think Tarr is one of the bigger people to focus on in coming days.

Vote: Ragnvald the Troll (Ranger of the Forest) You've been blocked on a night with a missing kill, and your responses not only don't really make much sense, but also feel like you are just grasping for straws. I feel as if you're our best option going forward.

You made no objections yesterday when I explained that there could be as little as 5 uncleared individuals yesterday. I never said it was a given, I said it was a possibility. Considering how well planned our town block has been together, there's no reason it isn't a possibility. Following what I said yesterday, it is a completely reasonable thought to have only 3 people uncleared. I could say the same to you, no? You haven't been one to share many suspicions against me until I was brought up as a lynch candidate yesterday, if my memory serves correct. And I'm sure you want to lynch me. I'm your easiest case, and have already faced tons of scrutiny. I'm sure other people do too. But I'm not the one who got blocked on a night without a kill. Speaking of which, if Danr was killed by the scum, I would think Pudding-Head would have said something, especially since you're being brought up because of it. If Danr was killed by the scum, not only would the vig have had to have been unsuccessful, but the block on you wouldn't be as helpful of information, as Pudding-Head would have known the vigilante had been the unsuccessful killer.

Nice to see that the block was correct about Dar. It's enough now for me to say that my doubts were incorrect. It's obvious that the Ragnvald results are rather incriminating, and with what would appear to be three people left who haven't been cleared, should our trend be continued, he is the next most likely scum.

I never asked you to share any roles or identities. I wanted to hear about results because the day was seemingly silent. Even you've kept your mouth shut today. I even specifically said I wanted you to come back with results, because you've been the mouthpiece for the power roles. I won't argue with the sucessfulness of the block, as you've been a hugely reliable member of this town so far, but it seemed unbelievable to me that by Day 5, a day which, given how successful we have been, could give us the win with the information we have, was so dry of anything.

Thank you. This was all I wanted to hear, some sign that we have some sort of result. Vote Dar (Dragonfire) I'm not saying we shouldn't trust them yet. They're all we have. However, I think it's important to remain cautious. I wasn't saying we should never trust a town block. My statement was meant to be more of a comment on how nothing had come up after 24 hours regarding any results, which left me a little concerned about the honesty of some members of the block. We now, however, have a result to work with, which will help not only lower the amount of uncleared players, but also help with the block's reliability.

Well there seem to be some people who are putting all of their trust into this town block, especially Tarr, so I still think it was a viable concern. As for the Pudding-Head scenario, I've explained several times that it was a communication error. I spoke to Tarben once about how something seemed off. That was it. He then relayed that to Pudding-Head saying I was strongly campaigning for his lynch, which was not the case at all. Once again, I merely expressed a slight concern, and left it at that. Also, how exactly did that last statement read as if I knew about Tarben's role? I pretty clearly said I suspected him to be a Third Party, and not corrupted.

No, not at all. I was expressing a concern. There's a very good chance that we could be doing very well with this town block, and that it is legitimate. What's concerning is the seemingly lack of application with it in a time where we need to start utilising our results to lynch the scum. I didn't say having all 4 roles alive was bad at all. Having potentially 8 clears is outstanding. I brought up the possibility that some of them might not be telling the truth if they aren't going to use these roles to our advantage and just stay quiet, as this day has gone. So no, I didn't contradict myself. Also, I'm not sure what is so wrong about having a slight worry about the block when it hasn't been utilised. It's a legitimate concern when it comes down to the end of the game. Scum have infoltrated blocks before, it's not out of the realm of possibiities. I don't doubt the truth of the block, I just brought it up as a precautionary thought. I want to hear more from Pudding-Head about our numbers and whether my assessment on numbers was correct or not, and hopefully from that we can gather a better idea of who to look into and who strong lynch candidates are.

Sad to see Lodmund turned up innocent. As I explained to Pudding-Head several days ago, my silence isn't damning. I agreed to this mission acknowledging that I would be much more silent than in the past. A "gut feeling" should not be used in the same light as a certainty, which is the tone you named your suspicions in. Especially with no elaboration on why you found them suspicious. All you said you think one of them has to be scum. But why is that something to complain about? It helps us as a town, and it's not like it adds anything new to the discussion. We already know the scum are being sloppy, though I'm more inclined to say "were" with the lynch of the town yesterday and no indicator of any scum results yet from an investigator. There's no real reason to complain about something that is bettering your odds of winning, unless it actually isn't. I've been on a lot of people's radars. Unfortunately, other than Pudding-Head, I don't recall anybody else bringing up anything incriminating about me other than my activity, which as I said, was going to be low no matter what. Your lack of real elaboration on what specifically makes me "overall scummy" is concerning, and leaves me wondering where you could actually be aligned given the fact that you haven't been too much of an innocent seeming player yourself. Another concern of mine is this town block. With 13 players left, and no mention on the death status of the power roles, we are left with the 4 original power roles Pudding-Head claimed to be in contact with, assuming all 4 are alive, gives us 4 for-sure clears. 5 if Pudding-Head was cleared by investigation. Then, we have the investigation clears. The lack of mention of any result 24 hours into the day leads me to believe that it was an innocent result yet again, which rounds us out to 8 total clears, and 5 who aren't. 5 non-cleared people is a very slim number, and at this point there shouldn't be any reason to believe that we can't start using results from the power roles to our advantage to separate the scum from the town. With likely only 5 people not cleared, I am left afraid that there could be some people in this town block who are lying.

Yeah, that link is missing, as everyone else has already acknowledged. You're being awfully friendly with the scum here. This is just an uncomfortable mess at this point.

I didn't ask for a name or any details about anybody. I was simply confirming a detail that I apparently missed the mention of. In all fairness, it has been agreed on by the town that there likely isn't a traitor. Two scums aimlessly searching for a traitor does not equal the existence of said traitor. What is incriminating about him, however, is how he suddenly changed his mind, despite, like you did say, being adamant that there was not one. I am at such a loss for words right now with Lodmund after this. Not only in response does he provide a link that is different from what you described, sans the "missing", if I'm understanding this right, he was supposedly able to get into this writeboard initially. How?! I know I'm just repeating stuff, but that isn't even the typical writeboard URL style, how was he even able to type in a password to get in? My best guess is he wasn't and this was a sloppily made cover up. Vote: Lodmund the Dwarf (Lord Duvors)

Not shocked about Mist, but Munud being loyal is a bit of a surprise, and I won't lie, with the way Tarben was stirring things up, his coming up loyal came to me as a surprise as well, though I more suspected him to be a Third-Party rather than a full-fledged corrupted member. I could have sworn we had talked about this. I did, admittedly, freak the megabluck out when I should not have, but as I have explained, Tarben stirred the pot a bit and turned the issue into a much bigger deal to me than it actually was. As for disappearing, that is my own fault due to many underlying circumstances in my personal life. Seeing how it is now Day 4, I'm beginning to wonder where our investigator is. By now, in a perfect world there would be three results, enough to form a solid town block, as I'm sure we would have heard otherwise if there were a corrupted result. Did I miss something? Did our investigator already die? It is fairly early into the day, leaving room for results to be revealed, but I have a hard time believing that, while being in contact with the vigilante, blocker, and tracker, an investigator wouldn't have checked Pudding-Head by now and contacted him to start a town block. It seems rather perplexing to me.

I'm not. I pretty specifically said the block on Mist doesn't match her claims, making it much more likely that she is lying. We already knew Mist was focused on the traitor, I added Munud into the mix. Is there a problem there? Vote: Mist (Mencot) We know. That's why you're being lynched.

Nice start to the day. Always good to see a dead scum. Interesting how Mist was blocked, yet insists that she doesn't have any night actions. That doesn't account for a missing kill, along with a possible third killing action that has been missing as well. The assumptions about the traitor are a puzzle in themselves. It is very possible that it was a scum ploy from Jarl, and if so, it was a good one considering talks of a traitor have been around since the first day, but it doesn't seem like one that many of us have fallen for, and the topic of there only possible being a traitor seems to only exist to distract us now, which makes me uneasy about Munud, who seems to want to talk about it deeply.

After talking with Pudding-Head privately, it's clear that Tarben was blowing things out of proportion. Interesting how he's been a factor on both days' major conflicts. Unvote: Pudding-Head (Hinckley) Jarl the Apologetic is definitely suspicious, as is Cranebeinn, but if I remember correctly, Jarl was acting odd yesterday too, so I think my vote is going to go on him today. Vote: Jarl (jluck) What sets you apart from the others? If we end up lynching Jarl and he turns up town, we have the same odds. It works with everyone, not just you. Didn't we already establish this? What was the point exactly in restating it again?

Tarben, it wasn't much of a slight mention in the sense that I asked you about your thoughts on Pudding-Head. The focus of that discussion was most definitely on our thoughts on Pudding-Head. However, I don't recall saying I was set on him being scum, nor did I think it was because he said I had a fluffy post. I expressed a slight concern as for the mention of my original non-vote yesterday, as I wouldn't put it past a traitorous Pudding-Head to set up that framework for a potential suspect. This clearly was blown out of proportion as you decided to relay that to Pudding-Head.

Campaigning for your lynch? That's a major stretch of the truth. To Tarben], I voiced a slight suspicion. I didn't even suggest you as a lynch. I voiced a slight worry about your behavior. I didn't even say you were guaranteed scum. I got the same response you did, that being either you or myself is scum. Now you're just putting words into my mouth. Once again, you suggested first that one of us must be scum, based solely on somebody else's read. I didn't "lay it down on the line" that one of us is scum. That was your doing, and it's a fairly clear statement from you. It wasn't that he was questioning people. It was that he was doing so without adding anything particularly new, other than asking others for counterclaims early in the day. Vote: Pudding-Head (Hinckley)

If you read yesterday, I did address your mentioning of my vote. Quickly, but I did. It was not enough to make me solidly feel committed that you were scum, though. That's why I waited until today, as well as didn't vote for you yesterday. I bring it up now because it seems like all you've done is question, question, question, without actually discussing anything, until now, when you hear that someone actually finds you a bit suspicious. And the need to mention what Tarden says is a completely irrelevant topic, because I should be saying the same thing, which is that you are definitely scum. Even if I WAS scum, I should be saying that. And forgive me, but I do not think my activity is a great place to look to this time around. I do believe that I said I would be less active on this journey, and if that's one of yor reasons for me being scum, you might as well suspect the Fire-Starter too.

I was planning on addressing this soon, Pudding-Head. But since you feel the need to bring it up, I'm more than willing to talk about it. To be honest, something does seem off about you this time. What really had me worried was your calling out of my vote. This is funny, because when I was talking to someone about my worries for you, this was EXACTLY what I said would happen. No matter what I did after you called me out, you could use as leverage against me. If I voted in my next post, I look panicked. If I waited longer to post, I look like I'm doing exactly what you said I would be doing should I be scum. No matter what, it was going to make me look bad, and that's what tipped me off. It felt like you were doing that deliberately, to make me an easy lynch, and it led me to notice that you have been more focused on questioning nearly everyone, without adding too much actual substance yourself. You also seem very oddly obsessed with the "possible lynch". It should be made clear that my dilemma was on the realistic lynch, not a "possible one". I do believe I was explicit when I said I did not think either of the options were very scummy. That being said, I would vote for the option that was likely to give us the best progress as a town, the person who had had the most focus on that day, being Brand. It isn't a very hard concept, and something that seems to only trouble you at this point.

Disappointed to see that Brand was actually innocent, but not surprised. However, getting a scum night one is a good accomplishment, and not usually a common one, so good job to the vigilante or serial killer, whichever one of you killed Lambi. What I wonder, though, is what Lambi gained at all from trying to catch Tarr's attention the way she did. The focus of the town was never going to shift, and to try and shift the focus away from someone who wasn't even on her side makes me wonder if Tarr could be disloyal to us as well, and that was her way of reminding him to show up eventually, not realizing it would make her look as scummy as it did. Cranebeinn fishing for information is also interesting. It never has been a town-like thing to go looking for information in such a way, especially two days into the quest. While I was typing, I guess Cranebeinn talked to even more people. What are you trying to do, sir?!

As I had said, I don't feel confident in the Brand vote, but his lynch is the most realistic - as in, at the time of that post, most likely to happen. Based on the way people were voting, a Mist lynch, which was our next best option, did not seem like it was a realistic goal given Brand's penalties and votes previously cast against him. I find this interesting how you call me out. My vote can be considered bandwagoning, sure, but I made it explicitly clear before that I didn't feel confident about Brand's affiliation. Not only that, but I've acknowledged that he is our best lead. I'm committed to lynching Brand. Otherwise, I would have held my vote off a little bit longer and made it even more clear that I didn't like the Brand lynch. If I didn't want to lynch Brand, I simply wouldn't have voted for him. I hate to be one to repeat things, especially since I just refuted one of his statements, but Dar's pointing out of Lambi had me sharing the same sentiments. I want to know why Lambi seems so intent on talking about Tarr, suddenly changing the subject away from Brand and Tarben, or even Mist.

Wasn't aware that I needed to vote, Pudding-Head. If it wasn't clear from what I said, which you clearly took to have little value, I don't feel particularly confident in the lynch of either Mist or Brand, who are clearly the two main focal points of today. That's why I didn't vote. I figured that was fairly obvious, and the idea that there was some expectation for me to vote despite having clear reservations interests me. That being said, I do think the Brand scenario is our best lead, and his lynch does seem to be the most realistic, so I am willing to place a vote there. Vote: Brand (Brickelodeon)

I have no idea how to make sense of this. The Brand/Tarden debacle is clearly interesting, but is incredibly mind-boggling in the defenses coming from Brand. The one statement I especially don't understand is the one saying he does not read Tarden to be scum, but does find him suspicious. Not only is that a difficult claim to follow, it makes me wonder why he brought up Tarden as a possible lynch if he only finds him "suspicious", after taking a fairly obvious joke as a legitimate claim. How do you believe a scumclaim to be true, but then insist that you don't scum read them? It just does not make sense to me. Nonetheless, right now I only get a sense of naïvety from Brand, but am willing to look into him going further. The Mist scenario is interesting too. I don't necessarily know how reasonable it is to make a lynch given her past, but metagaming has proven many times to be dangerous.

Eeek! I'm late! What a jumbled mess already. I'm not really sure why Tarden "claiming" scum is necessarily being looked into that much. I don't see why someone who is scum would seriously claim scum at all, let alone on day one. Am I missing something here? On the topic of metagaming, it's never been that helpful. Usually, it's helpful as a day one "he's not acting the same as he does!!! Lynch him!!" claims, but with the tool of metagaming, we can determine that it really usually isn't that accurate, or even that helpful.