Mgm's Egypt Mafia - Over

[the silent speaker]

Does it make any sense to simply revive the first nightkill we see?

[the silent speaker]

The last one:
Ankh=life, then clearly the number 19 (one arch on top of nine strokes), then something, then ?place beat? (the beating place?) then the arch for number 10. So that one is "19 alive, 10 to lynch".

The oval in the cartouche is a mouth, according to the Gardiner list. And it comes up twice after the name, once in a compound, looks like. The symbol on top of it (inside the cartouche) seems to mean "arm" and/or sound like "a".

In conclusion,

vote: Pinky

.

[the silent speaker]

OTOH, I find it hard to believe a scum would translate a message fakely when anyone can check up on him. It's usually clear enough when a translation is wildly off the mark.

[the silent speaker]

I read it as our revival isn't *necessarily* the only means of revival. We might get roles revealed once we've used it, or some of them anyway.

Yos is likely to be about our best target for revival, but we might also want to wait a day or two to see what else develops. (And if he

is

a SK, Pinky, he's also an excellent player, and I'm confident that he

will

find scum.) Yesterday we all pretty much agreed that we shouldn't jump the gun oversoon on this, and I wonder at the speed with which Albert, Phoebus and Nanook are willing to discard yesterday's consensus.

[the silent speaker]

Okay, I assumed RafK was claiming a cop investigation or some such, but that would hardly become useless on a revival. This makes no sense whatsoever. I can think of no information RafK could already have that could become useless later. And the attack on IH is just bizarre.

It wasn't anything about suspicions, it was mostly about reviving and translating.......

And therefore was germane to the question of should we revive Yos immediately.

[the silent speaker]

No. The point of discussion is to catch scum, and there's a whole lot more scum than just Nightson running around.

QFT.

Incidentally, the presence of a cop claim is a good reason not to revive today. We may revive Albert, we may decide we don't believe him and not, but the threat of revival alone will stay the scums' hand.

[the silent speaker]

RafK: Is your information Yosarian-specific, or Night 1-specific, or before-revive-specific, or some other thing? In other words, suppose the Night 1 death were let's say The Fonz, and nothing else changed; would you still be saying what you have been?

[the silent speaker]

RafK, for one thing it would clarify whether you are saying, "We must not revive Yos today; tomorrow is a shiny new day and we can make a shiny new decision then," or, "We must never revive Yos, ever ever ever, for he is scum," or, "We must not revive Yos, ever ever ever, but not because he is necessarily scum; for some other reason."

Also, you've thrown out some cryptic hints at some kind of wonder role, hints that don't really fit together properly, and are expecting the town to simply take you on blind trust. You say you will be confirmed if we obey without question, but have not really outlined how, leaving open the possibility that you will simply say you were confirmed when nothing of the sort occurred. So I'm not inclined to take you on blind faith. Call it fishing if you will; I'm not asking about any more information than you've already voluntarily revealed.

[the silent speaker]

If I die you know you can trust me on that,

Why? If we have two scum groups you could just as easily be the group that didn't kill you. If we have only one scum group, presumably Yosarian isn't part of it, so why not revive him?

You are fishing, you don't need to take anything I say on blind trust because it will be revealed eventually anyway.

What will be revealed? Yos's role? You haven't staked an assertion on Yos's role, and in fact have by implication disclaimed any; Yosarian's role doesn't have an expiration date. You haven't said

anything

that will later be revealed or disproven. The only claim you have made is that you have made a claim.

Besides, if you tell a lie on day 1 that will be revealed on day 6, that's five days you've bought yourself of presumed innocence. You'll have to do lots better than "It'll all be revealed eventually, so I must be followed without question."

[the silent speaker]

The purpose of a miller is slightly defeated if the person in question knows his miller status.

I disagree, and in fact I think not tipping off a miller about his status is bastardmoddery.

I will be happy to vote Nightson when discussion is winding down, but now is not the time to press for an end to the day. Also, I think MOS makes a very interesting point about The Fonz, but inHim in turn makes an interesting point about MOS.

[the silent speaker]

RafK, you triple posted without addressing my question: what have you said that will, as you have asserted multiple times, be verified later?

[the silent speaker]

tss: I love it the way you try to make it that me not answering some question of yours is a matter of importance, as if it's somehow scummy. Not to mention the question was asked ages ago (not raised in your most recent couple of posts) and to my mind answered, so this is just a tactic to try and set me up as not answering questions (or else more fishing to try and pin down whether the scum need to kill me or not). I'm not telling you anything that would give away exactly what sort of ability/information I have/had. You do not need to know exactly what will be revealed about Yos. That is all. FOS tss

OK, this is completely ridiculous. I try to keep discussion going and this is how it gets painted. I did not accuse you of anything, I said you left my question outstanding.

Not to mention the question was asked ages ago (not raised in your most recent couple of posts) and to my mind answered,

Baloney. The question is not

tell us about Yos

, but

You claim to have said something confirmable; I see nothing confirmable in what you claimed. To what do you refer?

You have not answered this; you have in fact done nothing but obfuscate it.

I repeat. What have you said that will be verified later? This is not a request for new information in any way. It is a request for clarification of old information. You can answer it with an appropriate self-quote. Except that you can't, because you made the whole verifiability bit up.

As I said I did not accuse you of anything then, but I am now.

Vote:RafK

, for making unsupportable assertions and then painting any discussion as a fishing expedition instead of actually answering questions.

[the silent speaker]

For the millionth or so time: I already explained why I'm not telling you exactly why we shouldn't revive Yos.

And for the millionth or so time. This. Is. Not. About. Yos.

[the silent speaker]

*sigh* I don't favor reviving Yos either. I believe I have said this multiple times. This is especially true with a claimed cop we need a deterrent for. I am simply pointing out that RafK has made an assertion that is not true. How is that "prying too hard"?

[the silent speaker]

You are fishing, you don't need to take anything I say on blind trust because it will be revealed eventually anyway.

This is the false statement. You have said nothing that I can find that "will be revealed eventually anyway." If you have said something that will be verified later, please highlight it for me.

[the silent speaker]

The reason why Yos shouldn't be revived, duh.

Since you didn't actually say a reason why Yos shouldn't be revived, I take this as an admission that you lied. Saying, "I have a statement that is verifiable, but I won't tell you what it is, but once it has been verified I'll let you know,"

does not count

as making a verifiable statement. I remind you that you have not said that the reason not to revive Yos is Yos being scum; in fact you have gone to great lengths to avoid implying that. You could BS any damn thing after the fact and we would have no way to know. As another player once put it:

And if I claimed to be confirmed when nothing had actually happened, I wouldn't expect to get away with it.

I notice also that RafK requiemed Yosarian at the start of the day. In addition to being a minor scumtell in its own right, it totally clashes with his purported information and subsequent Yosarian-related acts.

So my theory is that RafK was part of the group that killed Yosarian, and he doesn't want his handiwork undone. As he has also deftly steered discussion away from the cop's guilty investigation (remember that?) I conclude that he is a scum partner with Nightson.

Vote stands, but if a votecount shows Nightson closer to a lynch, I will switch to make sure of one of the scum.

[the silent speaker]

I find it deeply suspicious that Yogurt didn't know that Albert had claimed cop.

QFT.

[the silent speaker]

Why do you feel that scum are less likely to pay attention to the thread?

The opposite: I feel that no one playing the game can be not paying attention to the thread to such a gigantic extent that they missed something so huge, and so when someone claims to have been, they are lying.

[the silent speaker]

Deadline is in a matter of hours, and nobody has more than two votes, and neither of my top candidates has even that much.

Unvote, vote: YogurtBandit

since he claimed not to know about the cop claim that dominated a large portion of the day.

[the silent speaker]

The last line says living 17, to lynch 9. But that's the easy one. Thoth and Phoebus are now on the dead list on the front page. They're probably the names in the cartouches.

[the silent speaker]

The heart weighery is, sad to say, entirely plausible with my role. Sad to say because it means I have to discard a theory I liked about RafK and Nighthson being in cahoots. Also it presents a statement which can be confirmed or disproven, which was my major issue with him of yesterday. On the whole I have to say I believe him for now. Albert's claim is weird and bizarre and I clearly bet on the wrong horse there.

I am not an anti-town role. No vote today realtime, pending the mod's closing the thread or not closing it.

[the silent speaker]

Revive: Fonz

Vote: YogurtBandit

. This is the second time he has pinged my radar. This time it is making a post that gives "advice" that is pretty redundant, as there is no reason to think the reviver had any intention of shooting the town in the foot by claiming, and does nothing else but state the obvious.

[the silent speaker]

I now fully believe RafK's innocence.

Albert, talk fast, and make it good.

vote: Albert

,

putting him at half lynch

.

[the silent speaker]

That's it? That's the best you've got

after

we find that mafia have abilities? No explanation of why you killed someone who to all intents and purposes hadn't even posted yet in the game? Why you shut off an entire day's discussion? All you give us is WIFOM? RafK was at least outspoken against a now-known scum.

[the silent speaker]

"Ill-advised"? Once is chance. Twice is coincidence. Thrice is conspiracy.

Vote: Albert

And yes, I know I'm already voting.

[the silent speaker]

Come on. How would they do that? Van D can't ensure that his message goes in after RafK's without letting the mafia in as well. If it would even matter; for all we know (and don't clarify this, Van D) the night gets eliminated entirely and no other night choices are allowed to be resolved.

[the silent speaker]

I don't think we should throw around blame here, I'm guessing that over half the town hadn't read Damien's post.

I say that's a darned good reason for assigning blame.

Vote: MOS, FOS Blight

. That post was not in the middle of a posting explosion to bury it.

[the silent speaker]

MOS, we don't gain information. Our profit is in restoration of the balance between scum and town. The nightkills push that balance in favor of scum, and lynching pushes it back in favor of town. Albert gave it a nudge in the wrong direction and Van Damien gave it a corrective nudge. If it helps, like RafK said, visualize it as if it's just a long day 3 with a dayvig in the middle. This shouldn't be blamed for the activity levels.

I don't know why I'm bothering to explain this to you, since you're so clearly scum.

[the silent speaker]

Ah, but I'm right, so I don't need a ticket.

In fact, it looks very much like you are just agreeing with me and then turning around to call me scum.

Possible, possible, since I'm calling you scum for the unrelated reason that I happen to think it.

[the silent speaker]

FOS: Sacred

Speaks for itself. Also the correctness of my vote is confirmed.

[the silent speaker]

Aaaand MOS continues to spread misinformation. Zindie is not premising her attack on the Fonz on his vote of

her

-- she is premising her vote on the Fonz on his vote of

Sacred

. (And more to the point, on the Fonz using his vote of Sacred to conceal MOS's own complicity in what Sacred did.) It happens that I agree with Zindie on this, but

MOS

in pinning what he 'agrees with' on Zindie is telling lies.

It so happens that I could see Sacred's vote as more saying "Speaks for itself? Speaks for itself

this

, pal." than "OMG SCUM!" but I still call his neglect of Nightson's claim worthy of a FOS. MOS, however, hopped on the bandwagon, which is much, much worse. It can't reasonably be construed as a joke at all, and the idea that MOS was unaware of the role claim is utter BS. MOS is the one who has just been complaining about how no one is doing anything -- now he says he isn't familiar with what

has

been done? Come

on

.

[the silent speaker]

Unvote, vote: Kilroy

because, well, WTF?

[the silent speaker]

Kilroy, when people deliberately lie to the town, it is usually because they are scum. You have admitted to deliberately lying to the town. I assume you do not intend to claim that this is because you are scum. Why, then?

[the silent speaker]

I don't need prdding. I haven't spoken beause I'm satisfied that Kilroy is scum and as such have little to say. Thoughts on MOS, my other primary suspect, would obviously have pended on a result on Kilroy were such immediately forthcoming. As it looks like one isn't,

unvote: Kilroy

; let him have his day.

Kilroy, I note that you never answered my question: why did you opt to lie to the town?

[the silent speaker]

it's comforting, knowing you're so quick to start flinging suspicion on me

the instant I turn on you.

Kilroy has just confessed to being scum partners with Setael. Who wants to bet he unvotes

right

before the deadline and Setael turns out to be a scum bomb, thereby enacting a surprise kill on the guy before him?

[the silent speaker]

[quote=Kilroy]I'll Unvote, but only on RafK's uncertainty.[/quote]
Surprise, surprise. Why is this guy not lynched yet?

[the silent speaker]

Vote: Kill Roy

He seemed like scum yesterday, he seems like scum today, and his actions have all tended to show that he's entirely uninterested in using his role to help the town in any meaningful way.

[the silent speaker]

now you're attacking our claimed cop, who has merely proven himself a douchebag, not scum.

Tripe. He has been nothing but obstructionist all game, he responded to a direct question with an outright lie whose only purpose was to muddy the waters when he was called on it and was forced to make the claim he purports as true; the various elements of the claim that he

has

maintained cast serious doubt on his protestations that he thought he would get away with lying because "it was obvious" (note, by the way, that this protestation in no way explains why he did it, only why he felt we shouldn't lynch him for it); he has openly admited to choosing targets with obstructionism, rather than the town's best interests in mind; his claimed flavor of a cartoon character is ridiculously out of place among our gods, demigods and kings; his play at the end of yesterday with Setael, which might I remind you I predicted, was vile; he is only one of no fewer than three claimed cop roles.

Afraid that you're coming under scrutiny next, since I didn't follow everyone's expectations and investigate MoS?

I didn't say anything about MOS. But thank you for identifying your scum buddy for us.

[the silent speaker]

No. We are not lynching my scum buddy any time soon.

Fixed.

[the silent speaker]

First one: ... health to your ... Nanook?
Second one: protect ?tell? to arm [of?] your father? night 4?
Third one: Is ?MGM? [jmj-m but no cartouche]

or possibly

... in those man [men?] Sacred? with B-t-rw/l? [in cartouche]
Fourth one: It is day.
Fifth one: Alive 12, to lynch 7.

[the silent speaker]

I am about 99% sure he isn't lying about his role based on what I've seen so far,

... the five separate objections I raised notwithstanding ...

[the silent speaker]

Posts on this page:
Setael 3
Kilroy 4
MOS 7
the silent speaker 4, counting this one
Everyone else (8 players total) 0

Mod: please prod everyone else

[the silent speaker]

Yeah, activity really needs to start happening. Like the lynch of Kilroy.

Fixed.

I will justify my gut on MOS when I can be (a) bothered and (b) convinced that anyone cares. (MOS and Kilroy, being scum, probably don't care what I think as long as they can twist it to get me lynched.) For now I will only point out that MOS quoted me above bolding one half of a sentence and leaving an immensely important qualifier unbolded. Way to mislead, MOS.

[the silent speaker]

He has been nothing but obstructionist all game, he responded to a direct question with an outright lie whose only purpose was to muddy the waters when he was called on it and was forced to make the claim he purports as true; the various elements of the claim that he has maintained cast serious doubt on his protestations that he thought he would get away with lying because "it was obvious" (note, by the way, that this protestation in no way explains why he did it, only why he felt we shouldn't lynch him for it); he has openly admited to choosing targets with obstructionism, rather than the town's best interests, in mind; his claimed flavor of a cartoon character is ridiculously out of place among our gods, demigods and kings; his play at the end of yesterday with Setael, which might I remind you I predicted, was vile; he is only one of no fewer than three claimed cop roles.

As against this MOS sets "Changed my mind. I really don't see a scum Kilroy trying to pull something like this off." In other words, gut. And he has the temerity to call

my

refusal, which is basd on five separate clearly articulated reasons, to follow

his

gut, which is based on

nothing

articulable, to be the scummy reaction?

But then, MOS is self-interested. I think he's scum. Know why? GUT. OMG NOW MOS MUST VOTE HIMSELF!!1!7! Also because Kilroy, in stating his so-called investigation, challenged me personally, "What's wrong, TSS? Afraid that you're coming under scrutiny next, since I didn't follow everyone's expectations and investigate MoS?" Since I never mentioned MOS as an investigation target for Kilroy, nor in fact do I immediately recall that anyone did, I conclude that Kilroy *knew* that MOS was worth investigating, ergo they are scum together.

I went back to try and justify my gut with MOSquotes, and I didn't find much before Van Damien's Night. I think that's what prompted the gut: MOS made a fair number of posts, but (aside from being quite sure of The Fonz's guilt, a suspicion he has now completely dropped) very little content.

There is also the fact that in several places he lay groundwork for a plea of not being up on what was going on; consider these quotes:

What is suspicious about it? Why do you feel that scum are less likely to pay attention to the thread?

wtf it's Day 3?

How did that happen?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Front post said "lynched", so I assumed...*shrug*

I'm really pissed off at whoever did this. First Albert, now this. I've missed like a day and a half, and 2 nights, because of their stupid shit.

What do you think my motives would be for telling everyone that I did not see Van Damien's post, if I were scum?

"Oh, don't look at me! I'm hardly paying attention! Scum would be way more attentive to the game than I am!"

MOS was one of the people who was very upset about the missing night, whch clearly was good for the town. In particular he asked Thoth, who defended VD, "What information have we gained by having a night where nothing happened?" and again, "And what info did you gain, Thoth?"

Thoth did not use the word "information" at all in the post MOS quoted.

This is fishing at its best.

Or how about this:

Nightson claimed? Didn't know that.

How was I "buddying up to" Nightson? HE MADE A BELIEVABLE ROLE CLAIM.

[the silent speaker]

Or, instead of making up a convoluted theory, I actually DID miss parts of the game...imagine that!

The point was not that you missed parts of the gam. The point was that you felt it necessary, over and over and over again, to call attention to the fact that you missed part of the game.

The forgetting one came first, and then I was informed of his claim, so when I made the second post a week later, I remembered the claim.

Obviously the first post was made after you remembered he had claimed, too, else you couldn't have acknowledged that you had missed it. But the post in which you were accused of buddying up to Nightson came BEFORE, at around the time the claim was made. If Nightson's roleclaim had been a reason for your actions THEN, you did know at the time and hould have remembered or been reminded with even a cursory run-through of your own posts.

Did you miss the fact where I agreed that we profit from having Van Damien end the night quickly? The only thing I did was question whether or not we gained information from ending the night quickly, something you have claimed to agree with.

The first time, I imagine I did miss the fact; on reread I was surprised to see that you did indeed agree to just that. But in my last post I didn't premise my argument that you were claiming we didn't profit, but that you were asking specifically Thoth what information he personally garnered; i.e. fishing.

All that said, the current state of lurkage means nobody active dare be lynched. Everyone's last post:
1. Thoth Oct. 15
4. Setael Oct. 24
5. Zindaras Oct. 18
7. YogurtBandit Aug. 5
9. the silent speaker this post
11. Nightson Oct. 18
13. VanDamien Aug. 10
14. The Fonz Oct. 24
15. inHimshallibe Aug. 23
17. RafK Oct. 4
19. Kilroy8675309 Oct. 22
20. Mastermind of Sin Oct. 24

Without Van Damien, Yogurt, and inHim, we need seven out of nine; without RafK, we need seven out of eight. The lynchee is presumably not going to vote for self, so that means a unanimous lynch. Bottom line, if allied scum are in the game still and we lynch an active player, we lose. (Even if MOS unexpectedly decides to bus Kilroy, which would be inexplicable on his part at this stage, one nightkill would mean tomorrow dawns with ten alive, six to lynch and not enough active players to lynch one unless the nightkill was a lurker.) It follows that the lurkers are crippling the town. Van Damien is of course confirmed, and RafK is holding the scum blocker hostage, so that leaves Yogurt and inHim. These people must die. But we only can afford one lurkerlynch, I think; positing two allied scum and two lurkerlynches that hit townies (worst case) coupled with one nightkill per night, we have eight alive, six people not allied with the aforementioned scumgroup and five to lynch: not quite LOL, but we would have to worry about playing killers off against cult.

To get the ball rolling on what might be our last chance,

Unvote: Kilroy, vote: YogurtBandit

, the (slightly) more egregious offender. If either MOS or Kilroy wants to vote the other, I'll happily go back to the scumwagon and put off the lurkerwagon till tomorrow, but since I don't see that happening...

[the silent speaker]

Of course, he is blatantly trying to get someone else lynched.

Of course I am. If I get lynched, the town's odds shoot down next to zero.

But it's not like I had anyone actually voting for me, besides the two scum MOS and Kilroy, so the idea that I was desperately trying to derail a threatening bandwagon is laughable.

Replacement, not lynching, is the way to deal with inactives. That's enough to tip the balance for me.

If people were lining up to replace into this game, they'd already be in it. I assume that the fact that people who have not posted in two months have not been replaced means that there is no one to replace them.

[the silent speaker]

Gotta hate it when the mod comes in and *****-slaps your previous comment, huh? God, that must suck.

Au contraire. It means I can go back to voting you with a clean conscience. And then after you're dead we can go after your scum buddy, who you're in open alliance with.

Unvote, vote: Kilroy

[the silent speaker]

Kilroy, are you high or just stupid? I was never

un

convinced of you being scum. I changed my vote because with the lurkers you were unlynchable. Now that the lurkers will soon not be lurking, you are lynchable again. Thus the revote.

Even if I'm pulling off an elaborate bussing, I'm still giving you two scum. I would gladly sacrifice myself for two scum.

Even if I were scum, there are two scumgroups: the killers and the cult. You could honestly believe you were giving two scum and not busing at all.

[the silent speaker]

Oh, so it's possible for me to have found two scum and not be of the same alignment as them?

Well, no, because one of the two people you claim to have found is me. Not of the same alignment as them, yes.

[the silent speaker]

I agree with

MOS is ri

Although I disagree with MOS on principle, I independently thought something that by sheer coincidence maps unusually well onto his last comment.

[the silent speaker]

Or Kilroy, better.

[the silent speaker]

The game is currently polarised, with MoS, Kilroy, and I suspecting The Silent Speaker

and Setael

, and The Silent Speaker and Setael suspecting MoS and Kilroy.

Fixed. Also, I suspect Fonz some, but of cultage, not of killage; also I'm not sure who I like best as a posited partner for him and I want to see more interactions before deciding.

[the silent speaker]

I did like Setael's "Whaaaa! Wh-wh-whaaaaaaaaaa!" post (that'd be number 1240). But I don't have anything to say to it - just wanted to make fun of him because he's a crying baby-scum.

Can we lynch Kilroy now?

[the silent speaker]

I'm not trying to get Setael lynched right now. Just you.

I'm not trying to get you lynched right now, just Kilroy. But I

suspect

you, as it says in the post, and equally you suspect me.

[the silent speaker]

Time to kill Kilroy, people.

Fixed.

Where are the new players who were supposed to not lurk?

[the silent speaker]

Well, I have nothing to say other than Kilroy is a proven liar who has acted in ways proven to be against the interests of the town. But I've said that already numerous times, and MOS insists I must be scum because

he

has a gut that Kilroy is town.

[the silent speaker]

My case on you doesn't really have much to do with Kilroy at all.

About the only other thing I can find you accusing me of is that I believed Yos was a plausible eventual revival before RafK convinced me that his information to the contrary was genuine. Even then, you tried to paint me as favoring an

immediate

Yos revival, which I never did.

[the silent speaker]

MOS: Reading your complaints about the BS-ity of my observations, I get not the slightest sense that you mind in the least where they aren't directed at you. The one argument that I have made that you actually refuted was the one where I misread you as a consequence of getting Zin's gender wrong, and at the time I already had my gut read on you and was predisposed to read anything you wrote in the worst possible light. For the rest you haven't even bothered to try. Answer me this: why should I believe Kilroy is not scum when he has lied to and obstructed the town, solely on the basis of

your

gut read on him? How is it, if Kilroy is town, that he pulled the shenanigans with the Setael vote late --

shenanigans I called in advance that he would pull from believing him scum?

Zindie: This is a mistake. You're voting me for no reason and will cost the town the game. Vote Kilroy instead; you and he are surely on opposite sides.

The Fonz: Let's try the direct approach. Who is your cult buddy?

[the silent speaker]

tss, you haven't made any other cases against me. You have repeatedly said I was scum.

I answered that already. I had a gut read, and when I later looked to justify my gut I found very little in your posts that I could point to. I said as much at the time. My biggest reason for thinking you are scum now -- or I should more accurately say for arguing it, since I still trust my own gut but do not consider my gut adequate persuasion for other people -- is by association with Kilroy.

I repeat: I do not find it necessarily scummy that a player should have a gut that Kilroy is town. What I find scummy is a player implying that others without such a gut on Kilroy are scummy for not following the one player with it. And Kilroy's actions, to me, point to him being scum -- I have repeatedly and clearly given several reasons why -- and implicate you as his buddy.

There is nothing BS about those reasons. Indeed, you gave several of them yourself before suddenly about-facing at the start of the day. Which means that your claim that "my arguments have been BS the whole game" is only true at most where the target of those arguments was you.

[the silent speaker]

Nightson, what the hell?

[the silent speaker]

Oh great, a daycult.

[the silent speaker]

Kilroy, I am interested in hearing your fifty reasons.

[the silent speaker]

NOTHING HAS BEEN SAID. Kilroy has nothing and is trying to browbeat people into voting for me.

[the silent speaker]

Nightson, I demand that you answer why you decided to suddenly vote me, and also why if you felt that "Jester is scum" you did not vote

him

.

However, consistent with my "any lynch that is not me will help the town" theory,

unvote, vote: Jester

.

[the silent speaker]

[quote]If I'm scum, and lying about being the cop, then the real cop is the biggest dumb*** in the world. [/quoe]
Would that be Nightson or RafK? 'Cause they can't both be the biggest.

[the silent speaker]

Can somebody please explain to me what about Kilroy's claim makes them think it is even remotely true?

[the silent speaker]

I understand the concept. I see no reason to believe you didn't make it up.

We have two cop-like roles in the game already

.

[the silent speaker]

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of any cult or scumgroup, nor am I a serial killer. I am pro-Town in every sense of the word.

[the silent speaker]

Don't do it. I'm a vig. Like Blight was, but I didn't believe it when he claimed the role, so I killed him. Role name is Ammit. Flavor is I judge people's souls, and eat their hearts if I find them unworthy. Nightson, those scales you found were mine, right?

I'll have to dig up my other choices. The Fonz was one, the night he died and was revived. I voted for the revival because I figured we needed the information and if I still found him scummy come night I could always kill him again.

The night Fonz died, the scum killed also. That should alibi me good and proper.

[the silent speaker]

Supposing

arguendo

you're right and I am a serial killer, Setael and Nightson. We have a killing group at least as large (probably larger) and a cult potentially larger. A posited serial killer should be the least of your worries, unless you are cult yourself.

[the silent speaker]

Fonz, by the time I voted to revive it seemed obvious that the revive was going to be either you or nobody. Since I favored getting the information, I went with you.

My only other target was Phoebus.

Nightson, WTF?

[the silent speaker]

MOS, you do know what

arguendo

means, right?

As for the cult, lynched day 4=potentially three recruits. The short night makes two more likely, but two is still more than one.

[the silent speaker]

I see no reason for a protown player to even consider that position

That is why you fail.

Lynching me is a wrong play.

[the silent speaker]

You're trying to argue that you're not an SK, and even if you were we shouldn't kill you.

Yes. That is correct. And it is why lynching me in spite of my being an undisputed vig (on the "but he could be a serial killer" argument) is a SCUM PLAY. The people who are lynching me probably have a high fraction of scum desperate to get rid of their biggest threat. Nightson in particular is very likely cult.

Gah. What do I have to do to make you people

see

?