Bob

I was under the impression that the vig was going to target Pierce, as we deduced he is the scum killer.

It could all be some next level scum play that you're going for. If there's one thing I've learned in my time in the Legislature, it's that if you trust someone, you should still keep an eye on them just in case.

Vote: Sinclair Viola (Scaevola) I see no reason to doubt our Speaker's investigator. If by some miracle Sinclair comes up as loyal tomorrow, then we lynch the Speaker. It's as easy as that. The real Bob? What kind of crazy nonsense are you spouting, Representative Matthews?

Have I not explained sufficiently over the past few days? I'll repeat myself again (as you're also prone to do) by saying that you're purposefully confusing, forgetful, repetitive, and all around a bit fluffy.

Great job to everyone, and most specifically, Speaker Dixon! My money is on either Addie or Bjorn, but I could be totally wrong. Two other shots in the dark are Tiny and Lloyd. I don't know if that's necessarily the best course of action. If Pierce is the scum photographer, then his role will be passed on to another one of the scum. If there's two scum left besides Pierce, that's a fifty/fifty chance that the role will be passed on to the scum that won't be vig photographed tonight, meaning we could lose a townie. I say we lynch the investigated Octan today and take out Pierce tonight, guaranteeing that the scum won't be able to get one of us tonight.

Unvote: Bjorn Borchard (badboytje88) Vote: Stanley Figurelli (StickFig) Claiming vigilante after only one vote against you, then being caught in a massive lie doesn't bode well for you. Plus he hasn't even been back since to even attempt a defence. A real townie would fight until the bitter end, not do a revenge vote and run off. Scum or dumb, I say.

So, him talking about post counts rubbed you the wrong way? How? Why? You even mention yourself that he's made a true statement here, completely invalidating your argument and why he rubs you the wrong way. What about you forgetting things or just posting the same thing that's been posted just so you can make fluff posts and act like you're truly active? Is now really the time for a poke?

Vote: Bjorn Borchard (badboytje88) Jumping on to a poke vote with no reasoning at all simply because someone else started it? You didn't give any reasoning behind this vote, simply saying "I agree with you, Speaker Dixon" and something about a conversation with Gerald that rubs you the wrong way. It looks to me like you're attempting to start a bandwagon by jumping onto a vote that has no merit (just vibes).

Are we really all in agreement that the vigilante photographed Bryant last night? What's been said here supports that theory, yes, but we shouldn't automatically believe it as fact. Unless you're privy to information that I haven't been informed of, I don't think we can assume anything. How do we know the scum photographer didn't photograph him? In regards to our Speaker, I'm willing to trust him. I don't think he'd lie about something that can be so easily disproved at this early stage of the game. As Maurice said, there is a possibility that one of the five people that have been impeached could have been the investigator, but I doubt that the Speaker would know that the investigator was impeached.

The reason I said it is because you're usually much more proactive. I understand you couldn't have won the game by Day Three, but your first post sounds dismissive, almost as though you're sort of giving up. It was a bit meta-gamey, but that's only because it sounds like you're surrendering. Your scumdar might have pointed you in the wrong direction initially, but that doesn't mean it's always wrong.

Either you're playing your laziest game yet, or you're trying to hide something. Which is it, Mr. Speaker?

If we've learned anything from last night, it's that one of the photographers was blocked, or the target was somehow protected. If we do have an investigator, I urge him/her to get into contact with someone you've already investigated as loyal. Unless our investigator has already been impeached. Then we're in some serious hot water. Myself, I was sure that Representative Palacios was scum, considering the self-preservation he displayed. I guess he really was a loyalist.

A Day One lynch almost never finds us a scum. It's incredibly rare for a Day One lynch to catch a scum, I can only remember a few circumstances. But, a Day One lynch is also extremely invaluable, and should happen. Not only does it give insights into voting patterns, it can (sometimes) influence the town vigilante's target. Add to that you didn't vote to save your own skin and I think my vote is locked in for the day, unless something groundbreaking happens. The Day One lynch might seem foolish because we almost always lynch an innocent, but it reveals a lot more the next day.

She hasn't fallen off my radar, but I'm fully aware that nobody is going to support my vote against her today. Therefore, I think I should at least vote to impeach someone that I think deserves it. Voting for someone you know won't be impeached today because nobody else supports you is just a waste of a vote. Therefore, I will Vote: Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw) The one power that all of us have is the power of our vote. You should never waste it just so you don't appear scummy.

Unvote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1) Although the speaker is on my suspicion list, I'm not entirely sure about impeaching him yet. Yes, it's a bit strange that he's not dead, but I'm sure that the Octan photographer and the Loyalist photographer figured that Representative Dixon would be protected on the first night, and therefore attempted to take out a different targets. Players that are in a position of relative power over the other players (like the Speaker role) are typically protected by the town protector. I'm leaning more towards Representative Palacios. Choosing not to vote so you don't look scummy is not something that a loyalist would do. Additionally, when you don't vote, you only help Octan. I still have quite some time to think about this, though, so I won't be voting yet. I'm not entirely sure about Gerald yet, and Bjorn seems to be confused. This is the second time today that he's missed something in the thread. Laziness, or just looking for something to post so he doesn't lurk?

I'm keeping attention off of myself? How? I've been the most vocal today. For a plethora of reasons, I Vote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1).

My apologies, actually. I misread both Siegfried and Pierce's posts, reading that they both thought that Leroy was suspicious rather than Winnifred. I admit my mistake and own up to it. I'll be voting for Addie again today. Between fluff statements towards the end of Day One and now the start of Day Two and the attempts to twist my words around. Add to that her wasted vote yesterday and an attempt to cast potential suspicion on someone else. Some other people to watch out for, I think, is Bjorn and potentially our Speaker. Hey, Representatives Callaghan, Viola, Laughlin, and Spalding. Care to speak up?

Is the second part about Winnifred being a victim of the scum not what I said earlier? I might not have explained the reasoning behind my deduction other than simply saying that if the vigilante likely targeted Leroy, then the scum targeted Winnifred. The scum likely targeted Winnifred due to her experience. However, your accusation about Gerald does warrant some further consideration. Are you even reading the rest of the thread? That's pretty much all we've been talking about today. Speaking of talking, nobody is speaking at all. Where are you all? Do you have anything to say? Who do you find suspicious? So far eight out of the fifteen remaining representatives have spoken today. Not speaking only helps the scum, you all should know that.

The key word in my statement is possibly. I used logical deductions in my reasoning as well. Yes, voting patterns are important. I never said they weren't. What I did say is that explaining your voting patterns as not important or really helpful. Your attempts to twist my words around are also noted.

I pointed out who possibly photographed each person, something that's slightly more important than who you voted for and your rationale for voting for them, which has nothing to do with voting patterns. You should have said why you voted for him yesterday when you cast your vote. Your attempt to turn this around and cast suspicion on me is noted, though.

I'm not surprised about Carol. Day One lynches are often unpredictable, and the accusations against her were not exactly the best. Leroy was an odd kill, as was Winnifred. Since so many people had a scum reading on Leroy, it's possible that a vigilante photographed him, meaning an Octan guy photographed Winnifred. More fluff from you. I'm not that surprised. Care to analyze anything? Perhaps voting patterns from yesterday? Anything other than a generic bland statement?

A bandwagon appears to be starting already? I'm not too sure about this one myself. However: This isn't exactly the best defense when it comes to someone accusing you. She answered the accusation somewhat, but then again it's not too strong of a claim. I myself would like to hear more from Addie. She started the day out with a fluff post, which fell in nicely with the other ones, came back to vote for herself, then returned later with another fluff summary post that didn't do anything to help, and again, went unnoticed. Vote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1) What do you have to say for yourself, Representative Tremain? Are you here to help us, or to just make fluff posts and summaries?

I'm going to indulge in some metagaming if only to say that if you weren't so new I'd instantly ping this as scummy. It's not always the best to revenge vote somebody. It comes off as very scummy. By the way, the vote for speaker is over. You're added to my list, but I don't think I'll be putting you at the top of it.

My apologies for not voting earlier, I'm afraid I was a bit tied up with issues out of my control. But none of that matters anymore, because the new Speaker has been decided upon. I'd like to know, the people who did vote for Siegfried, why did you do so? The reasons that I saw ranged from "he seems like a good guy" to "I've worked with him before." Do I detect some metagaming already? Did you vote for Siegfried simply because he voted for himself and started babbling on like he was the loyalist of the loyalists? I likely would have voted for myself, since it's too early to place your trust into someone. Honestly, I think everyone at this point is a suspect. Scum might have voted for Siegfried based on his record of gunning for scum. The scum might have voted for themselves, which makes the Carol vote very suspicious to me. Sinclair and Stanley, tell me, why did you vote for Carol, besides not trusting Siegfried? This speaker vote is very telling. I suggest we don't ignore it and that we look back upon it later on.

Present and accounted for! Let's make this quick, though. I need to form my exploratory committee for the next election cycle. Say it with me, everybody! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!