Mini 150--Beetlejuice Mafia--CANCELLED

[MeMe]

Yeah, what's up with that line?

vote: NanookTheWolf

[MeMe]

M_L, I'm not getting you. I didn't understand your suggestion that BJ might be "split into two" and now your "went into random players" suggestion has got me similarly confused.

We have two people dead. One of them's an SK "targeting the deceased" -- this makes

me

think the most obvious possibility is that there's probably another SK "targeting the living" (Beetlejuice?)...or maybe they're two halves of an SK team working together (which might explain your "split in two" thought)...I'm not sure. If Otho was working alone, he was way too weak to have had a chance at winning the game since he could only go after "dead" characters.

So, looking at the information we've been given and checking it against the suggestions you've made causes me to think that you're ignoring the obvious and going for the convoluted...which further makes me conclude that you're trying to distract us.

unvote: Nanook
vote: M_L

[MeMe]

Meme, read the opening post, it says that the Maitlands called Beetlejuice to get their house back, but Beetlejuice turned on them and hid in two of the Dietz's houseguests.

Wow - I did miss that. Is that something that was added after the initial thread went up? My notes start at Night one's death scene.

So, it's my mistake -- but an error like mine is obviously just that, an error. Why would it be "odd" for me to me to miss that? Do you think I'd

pretend

to miss something as easily checkable? That'd be idiotic. Consider my conclusions if that opening paragraph did not exist...they're sound. Your other reason for voting me is that I placed the third vote on you which, ironically, you've also now done to me.

It was an oversight, plain and simple. Now I understand where your comments were coming from, so...

unvote: M_L

But your vote on me still seems really weird. Why not just explain the source rather than, basically, OMGUSing me?

[MeMe]

vote: Dourgrim

~shrug~

[MeMe]

I say we get at least one more vote on Dourgrim. That way, when he comes back, we'll be treated to a blustering display of indignance at our gall for voting him while he's gone (which will at least liven things up) and, if he doesn't show up, we'll be well on our way to getting rid of a non-contributor.

But...

FOS: Stewie

(for what seemed like a manufactured sorrowful explanation over having to vote Dourgrim)
and

FOS: roland

(who seemed oddly concerned that "everyone" was voting Dourgrim...when it was just me and Stewie who'd recently done so)

[MeMe]

I think I'm insulted...

It wasn't supposed to be insulting...it was supposed to either get you to post something or help us to move the game along if you didn't.

All I can say is it's tough to give notice that you're going to lose your Net access when, well, you've lost your Net access.

Really? That's all you can say? In that case, I'll keep right on voting you.

[MeMe]

Interesting the first post basically cleared Otho though.

Well...it certainly would've confused matters if Otho had lived. Like Myopia said: he would've made a great claim.

[MeMe]

Well that's pretty vague -- which

could

be the point if you just want to get someone tied with Dourgrim.

[MeMe]

So...now I've got four votes.

--One's random.
--One's an OMGUS to my initial random.
--One's for being "spurious."
--And one's for daring to keep my vote on a lurker when

all

the lurker did when he showed up was to make an excuse (

not

an apology, despite his claim of giving one -- though one wouldn't have carried much weight anyway) while admitting that he thought anyone voting him shouldn't be blamed for doing so.

Um. Yeah. *Lovin'* my vote. Dourgrim -- if you were innocent, I'd expect you to be a bit more objective rather than to join a convenient counter-wagon containing two non-reason votes and one cloudy-reason vote. I had reason to place a vote on you -- your absence was irritating me. I had reason to affirm my vote on you -- you showed up gave a frowny-face...that isn't playing the game, that's stalling. No

way

you can seriously believe that just showing up should have been enough to let you off the hook.

I'd consider switching to PeaceBringer (for claiming to hate lurkers, but excusing the lurker's behavior while being quite vague -- twice -- about his vote on me. Dislike of "flow" and an accusation of being "spurious" are hardly explanatory...that looks like hopes of creating a rival wagon without having to actually make a case, to me) -- but I think Dourgrim's the sounder vote here.

roland & Nanook -- your votes on me are now dangerous. Unless you want me lynched, please remove them.

[MeMe]

As I said right after Dourgrim's first post: my post about putting more pressure on him so that he'd treat us to a "blustering display of indignance at our gall" (which I thought was pretty obviously jokey...but whatever) wasn't intended as an insult...but to get him to post something of content or to get the game moving along if he didn't. What PeaceBringer and halfpint seem to be ignoring is the fact that, although Dourgrim finally got his connection back -- he

didn't

post anything of content. This is his post:

I say we get at least one more vote on Dourgrim. That way, when he comes back, we'll be treated to a blustering display of indignance at our gall for voting him while he's gone (which will at least liven things up) and, if he doesn't show up, we'll be well on our way to getting rid of a non-contributor.

I think I'm insulted... but I can't really blame you or anyone else for voting for me. All I can say is it's tough to give notice that you're going to lose your Net access when, well, you've lost your Net access.

So, he takes offense at my comment...says he can't blame me (or anyone) for voting him...and tells us why he's not been here.

Again -- why on earth would that be enough to unvote him? My vote was a pressure vote. I don't pressure people so that they'll simply show up -- I pressure then so that they'll

contribute

. I'm really surprised that I'm getting voted (or accused of aggressiveness -- or encouraged to semi-claim) for what I think is a perfectly reasonable expectation on my part.

Having said that, however...

unvote: Dourgrim
vote: PeaceBringer

I just realized that, though he says he hates lurkers, he was acting as one in this game for 9 days (posting randomly the day it opened and then reappearing yesterday), but was all over the board elsewhere...so, I'm guessing he's got some self-loathing issues...?

He's also still not provided any reason for voting me, though he's posted 7 times elsewhere since I pointed out his two-time vagueness in that regard (so I'm sure he's read my post by this time). Looks to me as though he's sitting back and hoping for momentum -- I'm thinking that my idea that he might be trying to start something against me without real input might be bang-on.

[MeMe]

Unbelievable. My list of suspects right now is long...but halfpint just leaped to the top of it.

Halfpint -- you think nothing is happening?? Um...you're right. That's what happens when people lurk. And you're not sure what's going on? Try reading the thread. But, by all means, vote me instead of making sense.

unvote: PeaceBringer
vote: halfpint

I almost hope I

do

get lynched today. It would serve most of you right.

[MeMe]

And roland - that's rich. Your unvote of me, followed by a weird, unexplained "silver-tongue" comment and now a call to hold the wagon has done nothing to make you look innocent, in my opinion. You're part of the reason the wagon's

still going

. I hope you get your share of the blame if I go down today.

[MeMe]

Most things considered, I think I'll keep my vote where it is.

[MeMe]

Your discussion had very little to do with me, halfpint.

The focus was on

reactions

: yours and Stewie's. You're taking the stance that Stewie's reactions to my posts (following) is suspicious while Stewie's taking the stance that your reactions to my contributions (voting for me while complaining that nothing is happening) is suspicious.

When I voted you, it was because I found you the most suspicious and that feeling hasn't changed since I last posted. Your latest post is

also

interesting and does nothing to make me think I've got it wrong.

In just a few lines you:
1) misrepresent the argument as being about me
2) accuse me of lurking
3) say that I should say more when I

do

post (I wonder if you'd have had the same reaction if my post had been "most things considered, I'm changing my vote to Stewie..."? Call me skeptical, but I rather doubt it would)
4) threaten me by pretending to now believe I might not be pro-town after all -- making your journey in regard to me (a)since this game is quiet, I'll vote the loudest one (b)I'll unvote her 'cause I think she's town (c)she might not be town.

So...like I said...I'll keep my vote where it is.

[MeMe]

Take that to mean anything you like.

I'd prefer you to

tell

me what you mean.

And I'm still happy with my vote.

[MeMe]

I'm not intending to "go at it" either and I think it's pretty weird that our exchange has been defined that way by two players....I can't help but think at least one is not an authentic appraisal.

And halfpint, you've hammered the "I think MeMe should have said more" point hard enough -- the repetition is beginning to look forced.

[MeMe]

As a last clarification of this point (hopefully ), let me say that "I think MeMe should have said more" was never my point. First, I just wanted to hear more from you, which is different then saying "you haven't said enough". Secondly, about the posts between Stewie and myself, I was just surprised that you didn't have more to say. Again, this is different then "I think MeMe

should

have said more".

Perhaps this could have been an acceptable explanation if you'd mentioned it

once

, but that isn't what you did.

when you finally do say something, this is all you say. I would think you would have more to say.

We did dicuss you quite a bit MeMe, in one fashion or another, so yes, I definitely would think you would have more to say, either way.

I was surprised (and still am) that MeMe didn't have much to say.

Because you repeated variations of the "how odd she didn't say more" sentiment three times (now four), it's clear that you are attempting to use it as a point of suspicion. Basically, you're saying that the fact my post was small is problematic for you -- so it's just an inch in logic further to assume you're saying that if I'd posted

more

, it wouldn't be problematic. And that's the same as saying I should have posted more, despite your attempt at spin.

The innocent-looking choices are to either stand by your comments or admit that you were wrong. Pretending that your posts mean something other than the obvious does not look kosher...and it's just one more reason I'm disinclined to remove my vote from you.

[MeMe]

*crickets*

[MeMe]

If there's any action to be taken on halfpint's information, I think it'd be against her, not me.

She's not claiming cop -- she's claiming to have received a PM that hints that I'm scum. At best, scum has the ability to send night messages. At worst, she's making it up. Lynching her would tell us which...and, if she's innocent, we'd (well I would anyway) know to ignore any further overnight messages...and a cop-check/role-block/whathaveyou of me would put any worries about me to bed.

halfpint - was there any other information with the PM? Did it say it was from another player? Was there any reason given why you'd received it?

[MeMe]

First -- you said that you could see "reasonable logic" to both approaches...so, what's

your

reasonable logic for "letting" me live if not what I said?

Second - I

am

right. If we lynch her and she's innocent...we know that she really did receive a PM (innocents don't lie). And, as I said, I at least would know that the note was bogus...deliberately misleading. How on earth is that "squat"?

[MeMe]

Lynching you would tell us a ton. If we lynch you we know whether the message was a setup view beetlejuice or if it was some accurate info-

Oh my...I just realized that you're assuming there is, indeed a message. Why would you assume that just on halfpint's word?

And if you lynch me...why would that further let you know that this alleged message was a set-up?? It'd be equally as likely that the message was non-existent as that it was simply bogus...slightly more so as it's been pointed out by two people -- one of them being, interestingly enough, YOU -- that her behavior was not in line with the receipt of such a note.

Very interesting. Very, very interesting.

[MeMe]

Halfpints behavior was a bit inconsistent but your reaction to the information I find troubling as well.

Let me point out that there'd been zero reaction from me on the information until you ridiculously suggested "running [me] up" as a way to test it.

And I'd still like to hear your "reasonable logic" is for letting me live (seeing as you seemed to find my logic ridiculous...without actually explaining how it actually

was

).

And I'd also like to know why you went from being the first to state doubt regarding halfpint's note story to assuming it's true.

unvote: halfpint

thisclose to voting PB

[MeMe]

vote: PeaceBringer

, my best current guess.

Since halfpint's "note" post:

--He claims to assume the existence of a note when he first expressed skepticism
--He mocked my post in which I said we'd get more from a halfpint lynch than a MeMe lynch
--He claimed to see reasonable logic to both lynching me and letting me live, but despite my directly asking him (twice) what his logic for not lynching me was, he's yet to elaborate -- which seems like unnecessary avoidance.
--He said my reaction to hp's information was "troubling," though I'd had no reaction to the information -- only to his ideas about the information
--In his last post he claimed not to want to change his vote from Stewie...but since PBuG has him listed in the most recent vote count as voting for no one, I went back to see who was right (which made an interesting journey through PB's recent posts). This is the unvote post...

okay-- now meme and halfpint are going at it- I moved off meme cause Halfpint made a comment that her reading of meme suggested meme was clean. SO I got no clue what is goig on and really need to sort through things more so

UNVOTE

...which, in retrospect, looks as though he was interested in capitalizing on the perceived catfight -- since he goes to the trouble of explaining that the only reason he originally unvoted me was due to hp's comment (poising himself to

re

-vote me, it seems). He obviously didn't bother to "sort through things more" or he'd have remembered his vote was currently unplaced, eh?

Adding the most recent events to his early lurking (though he hates lurkers), makes me feel pretty secure that I've got it right.

[MeMe]

Option 3 you say would be a sacrificial, resulting in a "self lynch" for halfpint while noting that you consider this "possible"...and then you go on to say that the note being a frame-up is also particularly possible in a Beetlejuice game.

Erm.

If everyone's willing to believe option 1 or 2 (and you sure do) that pretty clearly says that 3 would very likely

not

be a sacrifice play at all. As has already been said earlier, all halfpint has to say if I get lynched is "oops, I guess the note was bogus" tomorrow. Not at all a sacrifice play -- certainly you could've worked that out...?

Proposed options

1. Lynch Meme- learn quickly if notes are accurate or false if exist.

This option will not prove anything except whether or not I'm scum...as everyone'll still be in the dark as to whether the notes actually exist -- especially as we know there were (and probably still are) two killing groups in this game.

2. Lynch someone else, leave Meme for investigation.- still need to find another scummy player to lynch.

Found one.

3. Lynch no one, let investigation sort it out tomorrow.- we get no voting record, scum get a chance to act but might be called for.

No-lynch being proposed on day 1? Not a good move -- though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you were going for thoroughness here rather than truly putting this forward as a viable option.

4. Lynch Halfpint- I personally fail to see how this would sort any of the options except the last and see it as low gain.

I agree that the gain would be minimal (if she's innocent)...but it's certainly better than lynching me.

Option 5: Lynch PeaceBringer as the scummiest-acting person in the game and forget the note for now. Tomorrow, if another one appears, we'll have more information.

I was disturbed by Meme suggesting the worst possible option. I find her reaction to what has been going on disturbing and find the behavior to appear scummy to me. I haven't played before with me but did read a game in which she was scum and find similarities in presentation but that may be her style in general.

What an interesting paragraph. You're disturbed that I would suggest the "worst possible option"? Um...let's take a look at what I actually said, shall we?

If there's any action to be taken on halfpint's information, I think it'd be against her, not me.

She's not claiming cop -- she's claiming to have received a PM that hints that I'm scum. At best, scum has the ability to send night messages. At worst, she's making it up. Lynching her would tell us which...and, if she's innocent, we'd (well I would anyway) know to ignore any further overnight messages...and a cop-check/role-block/whathaveyou of me would put any worries about me to bed.

halfpint - was there any other information with the PM? Did it say it was from another player? Was there any reason given why you'd received it?

And that was in response to your post here where you proposed the possibility of lynching me as a response to halfpint's note...

Our choice is test it by running her up, or letting her live.

I see reasonable logic to both approaches.

I said "if" there's any action regarding the note it shouldn't be against me and then I explained what we'd learn from lynching her (without saying we

should

, just making a point) and then I went on to question her about the note...

Pardon me while I giggle about the irony of you recently having a bit of a hissy over roland twisting

your

words.

So keep up the pressure Meme--only makes you look more scummy.

I'll pressure anyone who I think needs it, PB...so you can bet that, for the moment, I'll keep leaning on you...although I think you're confused about who's looking scummy here.

[MeMe]

Meme, I reacted to your saying that lynching Halfpint would be a good idea.

I never said that lynching halfpint would be a "good idea." I pointed out what could be

learned

by lynching her (in contrast to what could be learned by lynching me) -- in both the post I quoted above and then again in response to your statement that we wouldn't learn "squat" if she was lynched.

Notice in all this I haven't vote for you again. I have simply been discussing options. I find you play scummy, yes.

In a game where hunting and killing scum is the town's directive -- I find the fact that you

haven't

re-voted me while claiming to find me scummy rather questionable. You certainly had no problem voting me before when there was less reason to (other than defending the lurker Dourgrim), so what's stopping you now that there's a note giving you an excuse?

No I was not suggesting no lynch. I haven't suggested any of the options.

You might want to look up the word "proposed" in the dictionary, then.

Unlike you who have jumped to a conclusion based on my play.

On what do

you

propose we base conclusions?

So far we have been at odds. You went hard after dourgrim and I didn't see any sound reason for that.

He was lurking, remember? And you hate that...remember?

And this might be a good time to call PBuG's attention to the fact that in the V/LA thread, Dour requested replacement in all of his games.

In turn you began a fight with halfpint who in turn said she had a note saying you were guilty.

Um...I didn't begin a fight with halfpint. Unless you consider responding to posts and disagreeing about the game "a fight." Both she and I have already said that neither of us felt there was any kind of fight going on.

The "phony" play you say makes sense because she can say oops, mistake. Well, there is too much risk in that kind of play to have any real bg payoff. If there is only one day of notes, halfpint gets lynched if come off as a set-up. THere are the chance that any investigator may look there way.

I'm not sold that this is what halfpint's doing -- but it's ridiculous that you say that it's risky and that it wouldn't have any real payoff. You think that halfpint will get lynched if it comes off as a set-up? How does that make sense? If the note exists and it's a set-up, she'd be counted as being set-up along

with

me. And as for the investigator thing...you said in your last post that there's the possibility of a godfather. Apparently, that's only something you bring up when you're discussing

me

being investigated, eh? Doesn't even factor into the equation when talking about others? It makes even more sense for someone with investigation protection to try this kind of ploy than someone who's simply the victim of it. Consider -- if hp's a godfather, being investigated isn't a fear she'd have, so doing something that'd make her the subject of investigation actually protects the other member(s) of her family. Please, at least be across-the-board consistent in your theories.

Again note I have not voted for you yet. I have not settled yet for a course of action.

Again, I find it very odd that you're not if you truly think I'm scummy.

Your stated intent to convince everyone to lynch me has me very concerned and seems very scummy.

And

where

is this statement of mine?

[MeMe]

My my Meme, when you get going, you do really get going.

Right back atcha. Though I'll note that you didn't bother contributing much until I leaned.

I would also like to hear others' input...but I don't need to hide behind it. I'm

fine

making my own strong decisions (leading), and I'm also fine changing my mind later (following OR leading in a different direction) if input warrants it. But, so far, I'm just a lone voice -- only the second vote on you. You seem scared I'm a leader when

no one

else has weighed in on this back and forth. Paranoia, perhaps?

You sound more and more as though you wanted to push without committing, which could have resulted in coming off as a follower though you'd been an instigator. That you avoided placing your vote until now...but felt the need to do so after I pointed out how scummy it was that you

hadn't

looks as though you, too, were worried it didn't look quite right.

Yep. So happy with my current vote.

[MeMe]

Alright - third time you've mentioned Newbie Island -- but I have no idea which game that is. I looked through the newbie games in which I can remember being involved as scum and can't find one called Newbie Island.

And, if you're pro-town, I'm advising you to read at least a second game of mine (one in which I'm town -- perhaps Newbie #62) to get some perspective.

[MeMe]

No - you've got the name right -- it's just not in the title, so when I searched I didn't find it. (#66 for all interested parties)

[MeMe]

WTH did you just give up in 62 though. Seems like they just wore you out.

Oh man - I forgot how that game ended...there were a couple of posts that got deleted which made it clear that if someone involved in the debate (the four counter-claimaints) didn't just make a move, it was just going to get more frustrating for everyone involved.

Sorry...probably the worst example I could've come up with. It was the off-the-top-of-my-head example of a game in which I'd been in the similar situation of being accused indirectly.

How about you and I agree not to post further until at least a couple of others say something. Deal?

[MeMe]

First thing -- I think that's the fourth vote on me. Tread carefully, people.

Next things --

halfpint's claimed to have gotten a PM suggesting I may be scum last night.

And, just so I'm understanding this completely, please clarify as to whether it was completely out of your hands or whether you had any say in its contents at all -- I mean, were you given an option on whom the subject of the note would be? Or did it just appear with no choice being made by you?

ML's claiming to have received an item which allowed her a one-time investigation (which gave a result of "neutral").

This means that two people (in one night) are claiming to have received investigation results while

not

claiming to be actual investigators. This, to me, seems more than a little off...especially when the claimed results are confusing at best.

And M_L, I really, really hate it when people vote while admitting they haven't fully read the thread. That's pretty irritating, especially when I'm in a position to know that the vote's a wrong one.

You also claim that you want discussion on the matter -- but, as I said at the beginning of this post, I think that's the

fourth

vote on me. Looks as though you've placed "joining bandwagons" ahead of both your claimed desire for discussion and thoroughly reading threads to make an informed decision.

PBUG - VOTE COUNT AND DOURGRIM REPLACEMENT PLEASE.

[MeMe]

Crap - ML's right. Deadline's in about 6 hours.

No way PBuG's gonna let that stand without current counts and replacement of a person with an unfair standing vote, is he???

Please, people, pay attention! Unvote me!

Claim

: I'm Moving Man #2 - no night choice and I'm not a mason either (but I have high hopes that Moving Man #1 is in the game and can confirm me if it gets necessary)

[MeMe]

I thought I just did.

My role is "Moving Man #2." I have no night choice.

[MeMe]

I'm omitting nothing.

[MeMe]

I believe that this is the correct current count:

MeMe

(4): Nanook, Dour, PeaceBringer, M_L

PeaceBringer

(3): TripMyWire, Me, roland

halfpint

(1): Stewie

Stewie

(1): halfpint

Not voting

: willows

If PBuG allows me to die in 1 hour and 30 minutes despite the fact that we didn't have a current count or a replacement for Dourgrim (who posted twice and whose OMGUS vote is now a contributing factor to my pending lynch) --

please

take a look at Medicated Lain and Nanook tonight/tomorrow. She's put me in the lynching position while, by her own admission, she didn't even read the thread thoroughly...and Nanook's been on but seems not to care enough to comment. PeaceBringer, too (reasons stated in the thread) -- but he, at least, has a

reason

to be voting me currently.

[MeMe]

My role PM did not say townie, nor did it say that there's a moving man #1 (I'm just guessing/hoping). I don't have a night choice currently and my role didn't hint at that changing. I'm hoping I'm a potential mason...but that's pure conjecture.

It kinda sucks that the people who are paying attention aren't the people who are voting for me...

[MeMe]

Since Juno's receptionist is dead, I find it likely that Juno

is

in the game. Though, PeaceBringer, I don't understand why you felt "forced" to claim right now. I think you looked questionable enough to

not

be a target tonight (scum like keeping other possible lynchees alive) and, as Stewie pointed out, you were in no real danger. Basically, you were in a perfect cop position before but, by claiming at this point, all you've done is to make yourself a target, which ties up the doctor if we have one.

Regardless, it's a strong (if weirdly-timed) claim. So, assuming that the deadline will be pushed back somewhat, I think we ought to pull votes from PB. Obviously, I'd prefer that this doesn't happen unless votes are also going to come off of

me

. PB seems to be saying that he knows Dour's name -- PB could prove himself by giving us that name and then we could lynch Dour and know for sure whether or not PB is honest. With Dourgrim dead weight anyway, I kind of like this plan.

Anyone willing to switch? If a vote gets pulled from me, I'll unvote PeaceBringer and go elsewhere.

[MeMe]

Um...not claim?

If the deadline stood, you'd not have been lynched -- I would.

If the deadline is rescinded, you're still two votes away from being lynched (and so was I). Looked panicky for someone in no imminent danger. But, like I said, it

is

a strong claim and I'm willing to buy it for now.

[MeMe]

Would you be willing to give Dour's name to prove your role, PB?

[MeMe]

OK - two great things here.

1) Very possible Delia's scum. I would say that, next to Beetlejuice, she's the most evil character in the film (and Otho's pal).
2) Killing Dourgrim will tell us definitively if PeaceBringer's to be trusted.

I'll make the first move here...I'm very hopeful that others will join me.

unvote: PeaceBringer
vote: Dourgrim

[MeMe]

Um...could someone voting for

me

please help out here?

[MeMe]

Trip - I'm thinking that once PBuG shows up, there's a big possibility he's going to enforce the deadline. Trying to find a replacement in a deadline situation is ridiculous (playing a game in which a mod places a deadline but doesn't show up for close to 24 hours after it falls is

also

ridiculous...but I digress). If there was going to be a replacement, he should have been in place before the deadline was placed. Regardless, if PBuG shows up and pushes back the deadline, we can request a Dourgrim replacement at that point. Until then, however, making him the vote leader and, hopefully, the lynchee, will tell us something -- whereas lynching me will only get rid of an active, pro-town, possibly confirmable, player.

As for Dourgrim's role, Delia, I'm thinking it's more likely she's an SK than possessed by Beetlejuice. I thought I was clear about that, but since you said you read every single post and it wasn't, apparently, clear to

you

, I guess not...See, Otho was an SK for some of the players...I'm thinking his pal Delia might be an SK for the other players.

And if there's a Moving Man #1 -- I sincerely

do not

want him to come out unless 1) there's some role mechanic of which he's aware and I'm not that makes it a good idea and 2) it's obvious that I'm going to remain the vote leader. There's been way too much claiming already today, in my opinion. Lynching Dourgrim gives us valuable information. Anyone who'd claimed Delia today in the face of Otho's actual role would have gotten grilled by me (and I think at least a few others) anyway.

For those of you still voting me, please tell me why you think I'm better to lynch than Dourgrim. This question goes out ESPECIALLY to Medicated_Lain whose last statement on the matter was that some lynch was better than no lynch (erm...Dour's "some" lynch that actually makes good sense).

[MeMe]

It was just pointed out in the Inklings thread that PBuG's having connectivity problems right now.

Just thought I'd let everyone know since it was news to me.

[MeMe]

I think lynching Delia makes good sense & we could spare PBuG the trouble of a replacement search if we just go with it now.

I'll put forth my earlier question again:

For those of you still voting me, please tell me why you think I'm better to lynch than Dourgrim. This question goes out ESPECIALLY to Medicated_Lain whose last statement on the matter was that some lynch was better than no lynch.

This especially bears repeating as Dourgrim's now the vote leader

and

has been assigned a questionable role by PB.

Nanook, where the heck are

you

?

[MeMe]

So, I'm taking it that either...

---Medicated_Lain, NanookTheWolf, TripMyWire, and willows_weep (or some portion thereof) think it a better idea that we wait for a substitute to be found than to lynch Delia.

or

--Medicated_Lain, NanookTheWolf, TripMyWire, and willows_weep (or some portion thereof) are not paying attention to the game at all.

Could you four at least post to confirm that you're following along?

[MeMe]

Fair enough -- though your original post (and explanation) seemed to base its content on the fact that you believed that Delia couldn't be possessed by Beetlejuice. I thought you may have reconsidered now that I explained the likelihood that she's more likely an SK to complement Otho.

[MeMe]

I'd prod her first, if you haven't already. But yeah.

And what about Nanook? He's only posted once (a month ago) and is posting elsewhere.

[MeMe]

And how about Medicated_Lain, while you're at it? She posted on Jan. 27 -- just one day after willows.

Basically, why the focus on willows but not on these others on whom we're

also

waiting?

[MeMe]

Well, that's odd.

[MeMe]

sorting post

[MeMe]

This stinks, PBuG -- but I think you made the right decision to pull the plug.

[MeMe]

Well, I'm grateful for the vagueness. Looking at the set-up, I think it might have been almost impossible to win this game as scum.

--Only two mafia members and neither of us had investigation immunity.
--One regular cop.
--One role name cop.
--And everyone was told on page one that Beetlejuice was the one to fear and that he'd split in "two" so it would have been pretty difficult to panic everyone into believing we were in lynch or lose earlier than we actually were.

[MeMe]

Why, thank you. Beating up the sleeping guy is my specialty.

[MeMe]

last post