jimmynick

I'm getting at you refusing to "play ball" with the rest of us. And yet you were shrieking that you would not become a stump? That's not what you were saying earlier. That's right. But there's nothing we can do in that case. Really, how hard is this?

We see plenty of possibilities and we would be able to capitalize on one of them (if you become a stump) if you just send a code to someone. Which you steadfastly refuse to do because you are certain you will be "dead" dead tomorrow.

You say, with great certainty, that you will not become a stump because you will be lynched, and now you say that it is "unlikely or remote" for you not to become a stump? The fact is, if you don't become a stump, then it is impossible for us to get information about your alignment.

This is where your logic is fatally flawed. There is no rule that says you can't become a tree stump if you get lynched. There's also no rule that says you do become a tree stump if you get night killed. You are basing your conclusions off one night of results. And, as we know, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

I have considered the possibility that lynches don't turn into stumps, but you also have to consider the possibility that they can. You are failing to do that and grasping at straws.

Stumps aren't dead players because they are still interacting with us! :wall: :wall: Here's some leisure reading for you: http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Tree_Stump

Or okay, even?

Night kills are traditionally dead in other games, too. For all we know, a lynched player can become a stump. Lassie's right that the only way you could be certain that you won't be around tomorrow in any form is if you have secret information, i.e. you're scum. Toodle-oo, Maple!

I've voted for myself on more than one occasion (at least once, I'm certain).

I am intrigued by how easily Chester sheeped both the Alastair and Catarina votes. The part you bolded indicates that Catarina is perfectly OK with being lynched today - the exact opposite of what you claim. I'm intrigued by how easily you sheeped the Catarina vote as well. Oops, scratch that, I completely misread the time on the quotation Hazel posted.

This is the post you're referring to: Those four (Alastair, Hazel, Berty and Bobby) were all easy to accuse yesterday - other people had already posted about them, and all you needed to do was to ohoh so easily sheep those accusations. You haven't called me out since then, but up there ^^ you said you might have voted for Alastair had Bruce not immediately done so. It looks like you were still suspicious of Bruce then, though you claim you weren't. Not to mention that, when you gave the list of all the people who voted for you, it looks like you are OMGUSing them (and me).

Catarina, the reasons why (I, at least) voted for you are: You're more concerned with not getting lynched than with finding scum (as evidenced by suspecting only the people who suspect you); Having the brightness down is a reasonable response to having migraines or external light conditions, but is a poor excuse for using *asterisks* which are *known* to make words *bold* on writeboards, such as a *scumboard* you very possibly (probably) are commenting on; Would you please address the content of the case, rather than the time sequence of the votes? I agree with you, though, that Agnes's and Chester's votes for you are very weak and sheepy.

The same could be said about you.

There's not a hard-and-fast upper limit on the number of pieces, but I've found that LDD likes to crash when I'm working with big files - is there a way for you to split the build into several smaller projects?

Poor turn of phrase; I meant that it looks like lots of people involved in the discussion had agreed on that way of using the code.

Today as well. I thought it was established that people would privately create codes with people they trust and then if they get stumped, then the stumps can throw message each other to decode who had what role, and then communicate in code in-thread to the trusted townie? Did you miss the bit where it was Adelaide who originally proposed the code?

Chester, my post from yesterday is where I explained why. It also seems like Bobby is becoming more maple-y with his posts, so he is becoming one of my suspects. Last I checked, you quoted Simon. Or were you speaking to Chester? Do you think it's sufficient to make an Official List of People You Think Are Suspicious on Day 1 and call it a game?

Yeah, I'm going with that too. Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1)

I don't know, and I know I for sure have done it in the past as a townie, so it's not concrete. But it's another little bit of evidence that points towards scum.

I'd prefer you looked for scum to lynch rather than trying not to be lynched yourself. We can all see that Hazel is digging a huge hole, so it doesn't matter if anyone tells Hazel to stop digging. Also, what's *up* with *these* writeboard-style *emphasis* markings? Also, I'm glad to hear Bruce is verified.

And Catarina starts up like clockwork!

What possibility? That the maples killed 2 people last night? That's preposterous! The burden of proof is on you to show that the maples did, in fact, kill twice last night. And when I say "burden of proof", I mean it's your responsibility to demonstrate that a double-maple kill is plausible.

You've spent the early part of today fishing for the vigilante. Just because you haven't outright said "please show yourself, vigilante" doesn't mean the implications aren't there.

Emphasis added. I don't like it when you say "we" about the maples. Of course I know there are maples. I really meant "parallel" as opposed to "arguments" because it's like some people have made little bubbles that they won't venture out of (especially Catarina and Hazel). Ooh! Interesting! If I recall correctly, Simon said Berty claimed to him first. I don't see anything wrong with that - being a miller isn't really sensitive information that's at risk when you claim, say, vig or cop to a rando. But, Jack, I found Simon's quotation and he actually says he talked with you about the possibility of a miller. Do you have a selective memory or something? Emphasis added.

"But the longer the vig waits, the more maple syrup I'll ooze!" Is that right? Who else wants to lynch Hazel today? Let's see... I agree with Simon that Chester probably has inside information on the scum that he doesn't want to reveal. Catarina is somehow trying to contribute without making the pretense of actually contributing. I don't see why it took so long to realize that a blanket approval/ban on stumps revealing night actions is a silly idea, because all night actions are not the same - I agree with Sammy Sycamore that investigation results are OK to reveal here: But not here: What if we need someone safe for people to claim to? A confirmed Oak who hasn't been under suspicion seems like the right choice to me. Thanks for contributing. Yes, I did mean The Forest II. But why didn't you go and look that up yourself rather than asking everyone in the thread? Pretending to contribute, are we? I love that there are parallel Catarina-Hazel and Sammy-Simon arguments going on . Can we play as a united group rather than splitting into little factions in-thread?