Hinckley

So it puts them on the spot and makes you aware of the situation. Would you rather just not know what was happening. If the Jewel Thief story is true, now you're aware of it. If everyone wants the identity of one particular person to get a lynch going, then I'll reveal it. Did you think I was just going to tell the story and leave it there? It is impossible for someone to knowingly start a bandwagon. How would I know so many people would follow and Jordan would end up being lynched? My theories are random? Please elaborate. How are they random. What of what I've said can be categorized as theory, besides the set number thing? Everything else I'm saying is behavior analysis or fact. Yes, I'm duking it out with Babs. How exactly does that cause suspicion? She's pointed her finger of suspicion at me and I've answered to it. In doing so, I've noticed that her behavior is off and worthy of suspicion itself. All completely logical and you, yourself, can follow the progression of it since it happened in public, in this thread. Yes, Barbara is Sam Byck. Unless he kills the person he's targeting in order to find the diamond. Only another Jewel Thief can verify this, if there are other jewel thieves. If their win condition is just to steal the diamond once then working together can't hurt them. I wouldn't imagine a competing jewel thief wouldn't want to corroborate this. And would we have more than one role that could inadvertently give us an investigation result? Barbara targeted Scott, claims neutral jewel thief. Scott is dead. What other neutral role targets someone and they die? I believe Barbara killed Scott. It's also possible Lynette killed Scott. Tracker is a Scummy role, and claiming to have targeted Scott is suspicious, since she is likely to think that I know who she targeted due to the way I approached her. Sorry, though. A person who claims neutral and targeted the person who died is enough for me to cast a vote. If the host put several neutrals out there that could inadvertently investigate people, then I'm truly sorry for your lot in life. Yes, my faith in Bob is rather off. I would suspect he gave us set number clues, clearly, and maybe he put several neutrals out there to try and steal the jewel. However, I think he's just put a clever spin on a serial killer role. Barbara, what are you told when you target a person and they're not Scum? And what about Cornenlius seemed so Scummy to you? Zangara tells me you said he was riding the fence. Can you point out the posts that made you feel this way? I plan to vote for you but the act of doing so may cause a bandwagon. I have noticed that my vote oftentimes seemed bolder than others for some reason. So, I'll wait until we have a clearer story.

You're counting the times I said her name? You must enjoy having a pathetic attitude towards things. Oh well, to each their own. Where did I say the investigator is lying? I'm saying what he said worries me, but I never said I thought he was lying. So, you think I should have sat on this info? And continued to let the Town vote between two people who have no actual evidence against them when I have two people admitting they've targeted Scott? One who claims to be a neutral jewel thief. You want to continue voting for either Mary or Alice knowing that? What am I distracting everyone from, exactly? Bringing solid info to the table is distracting? The info about Sam and Lynette came after I posted my recap of suspicions against Alice.

If you hate the plays, there's a summary at the bottom. *lights dim* *Enter Jonathan in a "Members Only" jacket sporting some fake side burns and heavy framed glasses with enormous lenses.* The Assassin Plot by Jonathan Hinckley Jonathan: Jodie, I love you. Zangara: Come on now, don't confuse people who aren't used to you writing plays. There's no Jodie. Jonathan: I forgot about people who haven't seen me write plays. I'm just trying to give def a headache. Zangara: Carry on then. Scene 1 (Day One) Raymond Lee Harvey: Good news! I'm a day investigator and I investigated you as Town. Jonathan: Really? That's convenient. Am I supposed to trust you? Raymond Lee Harvey: Yup. I've told someone else I have a role. I'll tell you who later. Jonathan: That's nice. Raymond Lee Harvey: No I'm not going to tell you the other person, because if you're the Scum Godfather, you'd blame my death on him. Jonathan: OK. Say, will you investigate Alice on Day Two? Raymond Lee Harvey: Um, can't. It only works on odd days. Jonathan: That's ducked. (Day Two) Raymond Lee Harvey: I just made that up so you wouldn't kill me until Night Two if you're the Godfather. I'll tell you my backup, it's Giussepie Zangara! I investigated him and he's Town and we're all a happy Townie family now. Let's add him to our PM. Jonathan: This stinks of Scummy lying. Raymond Lee Harvey: How so? Jonathan: This is a convenient claim with convenient sudden backup and you're telling me one minute it only works on odd days and then suddenly it works every day. Zangara: Jonathan? He's Town? But he's the Scummiest! He's being so aggressive! Jonathan: (punches Zangara in the face) I'm always aggressive! Zangara: Good point. Scene 2 Jonathan: I'm suspicious of Sam Byck. Something's weird about him, dressing up like Santa and sweating all the time. Zangara: I talked to Sam Byck. He claimed neutral. Jonathan: So he's the serial killer? Zangara: How about a little play within a play? Jonathan and Raymond Lee Harvey: Fine. Scene 3 Sam Byck: I'm neutral. I'm a jewel thief. I win when I get the diamond. Even if I lose it afterwards or die, I still win. Zangara: I highly doubt you could make that up, Capitalist American pig! Sam Byck: I'm hardly the bourgeoisie. Cut the historical crap, it's just confusing. Stick to the game! Zangara: Sorry. So, you're kind of like an investigator? Sam Byck: Kind of. If I target a Scum, I get the diamond but there are other jewel thieves who can take it back. I win even if they take it back. Zangara: So what are you told if you target an Innocent? Who did you target last night? Sam Byck: Scott. He was totally sitting on the fence, so I thought he was Scum. Look, let's not make a big deal out of this. If people know, they'll freak out and I'll get lynched. Nobody likes neutrals. Scene 4 Jonathan: I read that story and see that Sam Byck killed Scott. Raymond Lee Harvey: It sounds like horseshit to me too. Jonathan: However, if it's true, then the Scum may have an investigator...even a day investigator, maybe... Scene 5 Jonathan: Why were you out of your cabin last night? What were you up to? Lynette Squeaky Fromme: Helter Skelter, I was tracking someone. Jonathan: Who did you track? Lynette Squeaky Fromme: I tracked Scott. He didn't target anybody. Boy, your first question scared the crap out of me. Jonathan: Why would you be so scared?? Lots of people targeting Scott. Why did you target him, exactly? Lynette Squeaky Fromme: It was a shot in the dark. Jonathan: Why not Mary or Alice? Lynette Squeaky Fromme: I assumed one of them would be lynched, so I tried to use my informative role to find someone I could trust. If Scott didn't target anyone, then I'd assume he was vanilla and could work with him. Jonathan: Tracker is a Scummy claim and a convenient one in case you were caught targeting Scott... The End *lights back up* Summary for play-haters. There's a day investigator, Raymond Lee Harvey, who investigated me and Giussepie Zangara as Town. He claimed it only works on odd days but claims he was trying to keep me from killing him Night One if I was the Scum Godfather. Plausible. Sam Byck claims to be a neutral jewel thief who targeted Scott on Night One. For those not paying attention, Scott was murdered on Night One. He also claims to be one of many neutral jewel thieves out there and that all he has to do to win is steal the diamond once. He wins after that even if he dies. Lynette Squeaky Fromme claims to be a tracker, a Scummy role indeed. After some squirrely back and forth she also admits to targeting Scott, for questionable reason. Apparently Scott didn't target anyone. In conclusion, I think the neutral that targeted the dead player or the claimed tracker that targeted the dead player should be lynched and not Mary or Alice. I'm sure it will be asked why so much info had to be made public. Isn't it more fun if you know what's going on? Now everyone can be more active, seeing all the Action and the names are protected, thus the convenience of using aliases.

What makes you partial to Mary?

So shall it be.

Yes, very lucky for you to not have voted for a Townie. And what do you think of Mary today?

*jumps* Oh, you startled me, sir! You must be Pierre. You haven't said much, Pierre. You're suspiciously quiet, Pierre. How's it going, Pierre? We cross-posted.

With the new board upgrade you can't multiquote. If you just quoted something, it's because I had it unlocked so I could multiquote.

We can start leaving day topics open after the day has concluded if people still want to be able to quote what has been said. We can lock them all during Night phases, I suppose. However, if someone were to post in a closed day, the posts could always be moved or deleted. Would the players like the previous days to be opened for the remainder of the game? Bob?

Mary: Mary did the same thing I'm accusing Alice of. Talks about why to vote someone but then does not post the vote. Then I prompt her to vote and she does. Quickly. To avoid suspicion? Possibly. Ping. A refresh of my suspicions against Alice: The concern is still the same. Mostly, in reading it back and looking carefully at it, Alice has told us in detail why she thinks one is Scum over the other. Overly justifying a vote on a Townie? We all knew, by this point, the case against each. Why has Alice gone through so many steps to explain why she was choosing one over the other? Maybe it's because I was hounding her about the summarizing post and asking for analysis. In that case, this wouldn't be Scummy so much as just her way of processing events. It could also be the Scum-perspective of needing to justify a vote in case the vote pattern gives her away later. Was she seeking advice on if she should vote for her Scum-mate Mary or was she trying to discern which Townie to vote for? Who knows? If she is Scum, we could speculate all day as to what she was actually thinking. This is not a very solid case when we look at it. She did do everything she said and even found a new suspicion in Bill. Still, the original "Ping" from me stands. It's a typical Scum-tell and perhaps she just did a valiant job trying to cover her tracks afterwards. And for fun, let's look at Barbara's behavior. And yes, Barbara, I did find you suspicious before you voiced your suspicions about me this morning. I thought you were too nice on Day One. Not nearly condescending enough for your usual smug self. You've done better at it today though. Regardless of attitude, let's take a look at some of the things Barbara said yesterday: It seems to me we could learn things from voting patterns when people vote out a Townie. Yet yesterday there were two bandwagons, seemingly. You started one and I started one. Interesting, isn't it? A vote was started towards Mary and snowballed. Then I voted for Jordan and a bunch of people jumped on that one, instead. That's interesting votes to be analyzed already, don't you think? Interestingly, after saying it's plenty of time to turn a lynch around, he actually threatens Timmy with a lynch just for suggesting voting for Alice. Although, a last minute vote change would've been hard yesterday, it wouldn't be impossible and Alice was as good a candidate as Jordan or Mary. And since Barbara found it necessary to actually apologize to Jordan for voting (bold move for the person you're hammering. So sure he was Town?) especially considering how the offers to put the vote back on Mary were ignored, wouldn't a third viable candidate have been welcome? Anyone who completely dismisses a candidate with no reason is worthy of some suspicion. I'm sure Barbara will insult my intelligence for daring to question her, but that's OK with me. This is what is see in reading back over Day One. Uneasy about her affiliation or uneasy to vote her?

Let me push my luck and ask why you're suspicious of Lifeguard girl and not me or Michael?

Oh, I can and will, Richard. She told us she would look into things further, but never did. She provided no further analysis, just summarizing what we already knew and no new analysis of anyone else's behavior. She just safely stuck to the two current lynch candidates. That's the difference. I do not do that. If I promise an analysis or to look at things further, I actually do so. It's a common Scum tactic to promise some investigation work and then say you came up with nothing. It's a little switch in the Scummy mind that says "I have to have an excuse for my absence while I plot with the Scummies and lurk." So her specific behaviors are adding up as Scum tells for me. My phone constantly corrects lynch for some reason. I guess it's not a popular word in the English language nowadays.

Again, where do I say I suspected you just for suspecting me? I said several times it was because you dropped your suspicion of Mary. And you were accusing me with something which wasn't true, which I proved. Like it or not, that's suspicious behavior. No. Again, point out where I "went on" about Mary. I asked you three times to answer one question, if that's what you mean. Another thing that raised suspicion about you was ignoring the simple question I asked. Def's "shit don't stink" attitude aside, I'm still planning on voting Alice today. Your reactions afterward and lack if promised analysis add to the suspicion. I'm busy now but I'll repost your quotes and my concerns shortly. This reminds me that Mary also placed a vote only when prompted. I'm leaning towards Alice but Mary might still be a good lunch. Phil, I will also post my PMs with them shortly, of the rules allow it. Busy now, posting from my phone.

Oooh! Custom FABULAND windows. Nice job, Kristel!

Inappropriate.

That sounds wrong. At least it's not a pinball machine...

I'm definitely having the same trouble. It's hard to make the details of people's hair as well since I seem to be drunk and forgot my glasses. Everything's pixelated. That is a possibility. We can definitely still lynch her. I told her by PM she should've been prepared for the vig to kill her. A responsible vig would've gone after the second highest vote getter. I'm still worried that if Adam was our vig, he was blocked. Otherwise, even though he was killed, his kill should've gone through. However, Mary did kind of disappear after the voting started although she answered my PMs. She was suspicious of Diana and Richard...whoever they are. A couple people have mentioned Richard. So, is Mary more than a so-so candidate now, Barbara? I'm not trying to be a smartass...well not fully, just checking to see, are you saying you now maybe want to lynch her?

I must just suck at communicating. Didn't I already say that several times? Thanks for clearing that up. Do you have an opinion on anyone other than me?

I'm not saying you were focused on Mary. You said it several times yesterday that you weren't and even made fun of the bandwagon that formed behind you. My concern was that you were the first to vote for her and today had nothing more to say about it. Phil said it'd be interesting to see her affiliation to see if I or someone else had purposely changed focus to another candidate. And I didn't expect you to completely drop your original suspicion or what happened afterwards, for a suspicion of me that isn't based in anything. I don't mind if you're suspicious, bring it on, that's the only way we'll learn anything, but your accusation was particularly empty, even making false statements to support it. So, what exactly am I distracting from? I'd like to continue pursuing my suspicion of Alice. One might say that you are trying to distract us from that...

My suspicion remains on Alice for the most part. Why do you think you're above suspicion in every game? I never said you were pushing for Mary, did I? And yes, your accusation does make me suspicious of you. Especially considering you're clinging to its flimsiness. As for what you call my "push" on Jordan, here are some relevant quotes from yesterday for everyone's ease of review: I still like the Alice lynch, but I'm keeping my eye on Barbara. I can't tell if her re-telling of events and false accusation is Scummy or if it's her typical self-assured attitude. I hope everyone can see that I was not pushing for a Jordan lynch. I'm not sure why Barbara remembers it that way or wants you all to think that's how it went, but I was clearly most suspicious of Alice's behavior and offered twice to vote off Mary instead of Jordan. That's hardly the way Barbara is trying to get you to believe it happened.

I feel honored to have one, even if it does point out my idiocy. I cast the first vote for Jordan, yes, but where did I push for her lynch? As far as your focus falling off of Mary, that is particularly relevant. Especially considering it took you all day to change your vote from a "so-so candidate".

How's the view from your tunnel there? Hammering? I only mentioned it three times because you ignored it the first two times. Still, I'll hit it with my Scummy hammer again, what exactly has Mary done to draw whatever suspicions you had off of her? Yes, day one vote is sometimes random, but you're not likely to base a vote on nothing. You're deeply analytical. Are you now saying you just drew a name out of a hat for Day One? The operative word there is "should". Still, you have more faith in Pirate Guy than I do. No offense, Pirate Guy. I should partake in that digressing I was talking about earlier. Yay, I have a name.

Once again, I'm basing my assumption that he was the vig on the fact that he was carrying a bat and talking about his Night Action. I didn't talk to Matthew behind the scenes at all and he, therefore, did not tell me that he was the vig and I do not know that for sure, as I've already stated several times. True. I guess that just goes to show my faith in God... No. I'm Town.

And you know this host may actually commit such a faux-pas, so it's not that far-fetched and worth exploring. So, third time's the charm, what happened to your suspicion of Mary? You say you didn't want to vote for Jordan and you started the vote yesterday on Mary, so what happened? Where did I say I knew who the vig was? And yes, I do believe Bob may have actually set the game up for the set numbers to be clues to affiliation. I've even said after he "cleared it up" that it's something a host would do if they tried to add something they thought was clever and it backfired on them. Bob claiming they have nothing to do with each other still doesn't convince me. Looking at the ratio of Town:other sets and the fact that we have three dead Townies who all had Town sets... it's more than worth discussing and exploring. Especially considering the host shouldn't have intervened at all to explain the meaning of the set numbers.

I already mentioned that Phil didn't claim his either. I simply missed Phil in the lower half of the alphabet as I was looking for the evil sets. Just a simple mistake. It is intriguing that the non-Town sets all include villains. Can't you just be entertained by your players wildly speculating? Sheesh. Anyway, I think this is what God would tell us if he had been caught off guard by the concept being figured out so quickly, but I suppose I can digress...for now. I agree Mary could be a good vote for the day, though I still like the idea of lynching Alice. I'd like to hear from Barbara as to why her suspicion has so suddenly left Mary and focused on me for apparently no solid reason. Don't look now, genius, but it was three innocents.