Chromeknight

Well. That's a spectacular result. Clearly lots happened last night. I'm sure we won't need to wait long to hear the juicy details. In the mean time, why Dagstyrr?

Hey, this hitting things rather than just singing works out ok. Nerwen hits Flamboa B twice again.

Humour. I was writing a post. And he'd written one at the same time voting for the same person. Since people could've brought it up as a serious point about coordination, I made fun of it. Because it's idea that needs to be made fun of.

Nerwen uses the party maracas to attack flamboa B twice.

Indeed. Town needs to lynch a scum. So, let's do that. Don't whine about how 'but we don't know'.Fiigure it out. Talk. Argue. Defend. Probe. Silent sheepy townies give scum the game. So play. Make the scum talk, they'll slip up. And the best way to make scum talk is have everyone talk. Not just fluffy 'oh dear, two townies dead' stuff.

Have a look again. There aren't that many assumptions. I'm town. Scum aren't going to kill scum, the SK is likely shooting blind and doesn't care if he hits scum or town. So your best result Is 3-1. And that if the vig can pick a scum. There aren't many possibilities and you're a smart guy, you can think them through. Don't obfusticate and fluff. Analyse and plan.

*this post written with no consultation with puddinghead. PS. Mist, what you're doing is called fishing. If I'm gonna go down for doing it, you can have a mark against your name too.

So. Let's thresh this out. Assume I'm lynched (I know it's not a lock yet, but the votes are running that way) Assume you see three kills tonight rather than two (scum, vig and SK) Assume I flip town and three other town drop too. Who are you going to go hunting for? Perhaps the person I originally called out at the start of the day, the quiet and unconvincing Tarr? A pair of scummy bandwagony voters in Jafri and Ragnvald? Kaupmad's clumsy attempt to drop me in cack over a couple of lines to him and Patrekr appended to an already existing thread? Jarl's continuing overstating of a weak case, boosting such ideas as 'town don't defend town' and 'oops I forgot the SK' (aside does that mean he knows my dear dead dad Patreka's murder was the scum?!). To say 'I'm the only suspect' and 'oh well, don't need to read to closely' betrays a shocking laziness on the part of town and losing four by tomorrow morn will be the reward you reap. As for 'he only brought up the blocker stuff because votes were on him', that's Megablocks. Bringing info to the town was what got people turning against me. Anyway. For the reasons mentioned above, I'm ready to cast a blade. Vote: Jarl Name-Loser (jluck)

I meant you could've asked me who the blocker was. And then pass that name into the tracker and verify them. No fishing, just trying to connect town.

So how do I get it verified?

Go on, show us what Johon would look like in the ABS!

Nerwen, enthused by the effect of her previous round, keeps up the Lucky Chant.

OR So, what are people asking me to do here? Tell who the blocker is or not tell? Or leave you all to figure it out? (Yes, post edited for emphasis) The blocker was told that the action was successful.

What changed? My life is on the line. Either I have access to the blocker, someone is is the blocker but isn't telling anyone or as a complicated answer I'm this stupid pudding role and instead of just keeping shtum in the day thread about it I blow it up by providing information. Information that, if I was telling the truth, is useful for the town to know. So far no one has asked me the obvious question either in PM or here. And no one has suggested testing the claim by putting the blocker to the test. The tracker is known (at least P head says so), so why would he jump to the lynch unless he has something to hide?

If you have no night action how do you know whether you were blocked or not? You could have been blocked, why assume a lie?

Needlessly complicated. And the chat with Patreka was part of a three way chat with Kaupmad. So how would I have found out what you think I did without him knowing? Surely Kaupmad would've said that Pat revealed his role (even if Kaupmad didn't say what that role was). Or say I was this role you talk of. It could target someone and use their power in the same night? If not how would Tarr have been blocked then? Or are you saying he wasn't? Or that Patekr blocked him? If so, why? Your theory raises more questions than it answers.

It could be if I said contact me. Or maybe if I said post in thread expecting some megablock to out themselves. But no I just said counterclaim, I don't care who to. But I'll bet you a barrel of mead there isn't a counterclaim that comes out today.

Nerwen attacks Wisp A with the party maracas then segues into a reprise of the lucky chant.

Well at least one person thinks I'm town. They've told me that the blocker blocked Tariq. I'm not totally sure if I trust them and I know many of you don't trust me. So, go on counterclaim and we'll know who to lunch. As for the supposed fishing expedition. I was trying to make sense of Turdben's I knew it comment about Lambi. The three options seemed to be He is scum too. He was just fluffing his suspicions with the benefit of hindsight OR Lambi did think he was some convertible role and contacted him, he then passed the info onto a killer of some flavour. If it was that third case, posting that in thread risked exposing a killer, something I was pinged for yesterday. So I took it private. Turdy denied option three. That leaves the options Scum or Dumb. I'll put my hand up and say my history has made me wary of killers, either pro or anti town.

Um. Maybe it's me but I can't see any way that makes sense. Lambi was scum. She knew who the other scum were. Why would she reveal to someone she knew wasn't scum. Even if she thought Tarden was a traitor?

Given I voted first, when I voted it wasn't a bandwagon. And I gave my reasons. He (in his own words) was trying to 'cast suspicion' on me. I found that suspicious. Turns out I was wrong. Turns out also that townies do randomly defend townies on day one.

The heat made breathing hard, Nerwen had no defense from the flames flickering around. She nods at Namyrra's words and focuses, weaving the best of the cackling fires into a lucky chant

But I'd argue I didn't change the meaning of Jarl's comment. He did intend the lack of name in the sig as a reason for the vote. That's what he included the AND in the sentence (which yes, I removed). Anyone who thinks it was Jarls only reason isn't reading the thread properly. It was the only reason I though worth commenting on. As for defensive, clearly my playstyle is being read that way. But I'm not apologising or changing. I'll continue to interact with accusations and demonstrate their baselessness, incoherence, or in the case of sig namelessness, their utter stupidity.

Defensive? No, I know I'm town, so I know that votes for me are not useful for the town. I'll keep arguing that votes for me are in the wrong place. To do otherwise, to just give up and accept the truth of the accusations would be to do the wrong thing for town. Frankly, Tariq, telling me to shut up and sit down because I'm not in danger is an anti town move there. What's the word? Ping! Dude. I wasn't talking about what he knows. Sure if he's scum he knows he's scum. But I don't know what he is. I know he tells me he's town. I don't know if he is or isn't. Gameplay will make that clearer maybe (but yes, maybe it won't). I do know there is a truth of the matter out there. I know he knows what that truth is. I know he could lie to me about what that truth is. I know that when the game ends (or maybe sooner) the truth will be revealed. I will listen to him when he tells me he's town (I'm not going to block my ears and shout scum!scum!scummy!scum! at him). What I'm not going to do is trust him until I have reason to do so. PS. Do I get in trouble for editing your quote down too?

Shall I give people a lesson in etymology? 'I believe' can be read at least three different ways. At the lowest level, it's a taking notice of. Or 'I believe' you think it is true you are town. It could be assent to the statement 'I believe' you are town (but I'm not going to act on that belief). It could be wholehearted trust. 'I believe' you are town, so I'm going to tell you my role and share all my information with you. Clearly I didn't ' believe' Jarl's town assertion in that third sense in messaging him. I shared nothing with him. My belief in him sits somewhere between the first and second senses. I know he thinks he's town. Given more evidence I too will think that. How might I gather that evidence? Surely messaging him is a reasonable step. As for apologising, either my accusation is so slight and a stretch that stepping back from it is reasonable, or it's unreasonable to apologise because the accusation is a sensible move. All in all it seems you've decided I'm scum and are stretching for evidence.