The Syndicate

Only three people chose grandma's house, including me. Considering the two others who are watching granny crochet and dip snuff (some bloke named Lawrence Welk comes on in a minute, so she asks that I "hurry the hell up"):

I don't know Shand from a shandy, and I don't much like shandies. If I'm going to drink lemonade, I'll add it to vodka, not beer. Shand has been helpful, but Shand voted for Caillic, and Carmen voted Caillic mentioning trust. Trust on Day 1...hell, I hardly have trust on Day 5. Bothers me.

I think people are making sense about Jorhan. Jorhan missed the vote, and then within the hour proceeded to analyze all of the Caillic voters, going so far as to praise Shand for "gun sticking." Sounds like a net cast wide if you ask me:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=148&p=19514#p19514

My only reservation regarding Jorhan comes from last night's poll. Thoughts?

linki: I'm not saying there are winners and losers. I'm just saying one choice had an overwhelming number of people vote for it. That's all I mean by "win."

Dilan Bluemoss wrote:An observation from the Purple Sea Elves: The rush to sacrifice Caillic by those at the Peace Table came shortly after Jorhan received his second vote. It is therefore possible that Jorhan is one of our enemies, and that some or all of Queran. Bronwyn and Carmen (all of whom I found somewhat shady on Day 1) intervened to protect their fellow fiend. Far from certain, but a possibility nevertheless.

I am leaning this way as well, truth be told. I need to quaff a hearty beverage, and peruse todays eruditions. Let us not forget as well those seven mystery characters. There well could be an entire league of no-goodniks hidden in that number. So suppositions regarding what a nefarious individual may or may not do might also be affected by whether their character is known or not known.

Rhinfrew Flowingrass wrote:Only three people chose grandma's house, including me. Considering the two others who are watching granny crochet and dip snuff (some bloke named Lawrence Welk comes on in a minute, so she asks that I "hurry the hell up"):

I don't know Shand from a shandy, and I don't much like shandies. If I'm going to drink lemonade, I'll add it to vodka, not beer. Shand has been helpful, but Shand voted for Caillic, and Carmen voted Caillic mentioning trust. Trust on Day 1...hell, I hardly have trust on Day 5. Bothers me.

I think people are making sense about Jorhan. Jorhan missed the vote, and then within the hour proceeded to analyze all of the Caillic voters, going so far as to praise Shand for "gun sticking." Sounds like a net cast wide if you ask me:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=148&p=19514#p19514

My only reservation regarding Jorhan comes from last night's poll. Thoughts?

linki: I'm not saying there are winners and losers. I'm just saying one choice had an overwhelming number of people vote for it. That's all I mean by "win."

My trust for Shand was based on my gut (isn't almost everything based on gut for Day 1?), but my vote for Caillic was because of players claiming they were voting randomly but kept coming up Jorhan.

As for the polls, my guess would be that the evildoers would have spread themselves out as not to draw attemtion to themselves.

I barely knew whom I could cast a ballot on for myself; one thing that drew my eye about you was that you were keeping tabs on who voted for Jorhan. This more than anything makes me feel you were perhaps in league with him.

I feel so lost in this game (sigh)

Rhinfrew Flowingrass wrote:Only three people chose grandma's house, including me. Considering the two others who are watching granny crochet and dip snuff (some bloke named Lawrence Welk comes on in a minute, so she asks that I "hurry the hell up"):

I don't know Shand from a shandy, and I don't much like shandies. If I'm going to drink lemonade, I'll add it to vodka, not beer. Shand has been helpful, but Shand voted for Caillic, and Carmen voted Caillic mentioning trust. Trust on Day 1...hell, I hardly have trust on Day 5. Bothers me.

I think people are making sense about Jorhan. Jorhan missed the vote, and then within the hour proceeded to analyze all of the Caillic voters, going so far as to praise Shand for "gun sticking." Sounds like a net cast wide if you ask me:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=148&p=19514#p19514

My only reservation regarding Jorhan comes from last night's poll. Thoughts?

linki: I'm not saying there are winners and losers. I'm just saying one choice had an overwhelming number of people vote for it. That's all I mean by "win."

Jorhan missing the vote and then coming right in to analyze everyone who voted Caillic pinged me as well, and I thought it was odd he praised Shand and then made that comment about me trying to hold him hostage. I didn't understand why he characterized Shand as gun sticking to begin with, and as I've already said his comment that I was trying to hold him hostage did not make any sense given the situation. We've got another day to see what develops but so far I'm the most suspicious of Jorhan.

Fane Winebattle wrote:I feel so lost in this game (sigh)

you aren't the only one.

I am torn right now regarding this vote. I have read the case against Jorhan, and read his posts again. The only thing of note that I found was his analysis of Shand's vote. He almost seems to be trying to buddy up to Shamd. This could be a evil tactic to try to make Shand more comfortable with him, it is certainly one I have seen used before. Basically right now though, we are looking at him under the assumption the votes were to save him. It could be just as possible that they were goody two shoes just voting with their gut or random or whatever. Day 1 it makes sense for baddies to lay low and not make any outstanding votes unless needed. Otherwise they come under scrutiny for the rest of the game. If he was a Baddie being saved it would certainly help us get a start on where to look next I guess, but we have touch him and see how he flips in order to know for sure.

I find it equally interesting that Fane voted for someone at the wrong table. This could indicate he got confused by some BTSC and voted without realizing it was not someone he was allowed to vote for. Or he could just be a confused new player. But given that this is an anonymous game, this could also be a ploy. It is very difficult to tell.

I still need to read back over the case against someone else, I can't recall the name at the moment but I will research that as well.

Today is a rather auspicious day for fauns, it is our annual Meadow Romp, which is an important celebration of Spring. I find I must choose an option early today as I am not certain if I will be back later. I am going to take a leap and vote for Jorhan.

Hello Finnian, do you have any thoughts on today's vote?

Grutfud Orangesprite wrote:

Fane Winebattle wrote:I feel so lost in this game (sigh)

you aren't the only one.

The combination of secret identities and an unusual Day One voting mechanic made it so. Stick it out, as if it were your first game with people totally unknown to you. You will get the swing of it

The Illustrious Me, The Fourth Member of the Animaniacs, General of the Moonlit Tropics Kracken's Squash Team, Bringer of Chocolate Rain, Slayer of Xerxes The Gill-Less, Sacker of South Atlantis, Looper of Hoops and The Youngest Smash Brother, does herein postulate:

If you will all recall, I mentionified the following scenarioification shortly after the Blazing Hot Ball of Terror We Krackens Dare Not Name rose from the Highest Ocean.

Queran Gloomsoul wrote:The Illustrious me, Duke of Farmville, Grand Puba of the Order of the Runny Nose, Clap-On-Clap-Off The Clapper, He Who Zigs When He Should Zag, does herein profess the following postulations in regards to the enclosed quotables and notables.

Firstly, the following:

Gobnait Gingeruite wrote:

Dierdre Wonderbird wrote:I'm also minorly pinged by Mainchin,

This:

Mainchin Ironbeast wrote:I pray to the gods that there is at least one mafia on each table. Otherwise some of our number might be voting a table entirely made up of good denizens. Is it possible our gracious host has made it known to the evil ones that they must seat at least one of their horde at each table?

sounds like something a mafioso would say after finding that exact fact out from the hosts.

Also, this:

Mainchin Ironbeast wrote:I know some people hate the idea, but I may just cast a random vote from the Table of Peace. I will look through their posts first to get some idea who I'm voting for.

followed by a non-random vote is a bit odd. If you are going to random, why read through their posts? This is all minor, but my gut is telling me Mainchin may not be a good guy. He's on the watchlist, let's put it that way.

Dierdre, I was also pinged by both of the posts you mentioned, and I hope Mainchin shows up to offer some explanation for them. The concern in the first post struck me as weird even if he didn't have any info. Civs getting votes isn't necessarily bad as long as they don't get lynched. "Random" voting always bothers me, as well.

I don't agree so much with your case on Laine; so far he's read somewhat confused civ to me. It could be an act, but I doubt I'd be ready to lynch him for it just yet.

And sentimentality won out; I'm going to the castle, upon the battlements of which I have frightened many a foe.

Seems to me to be a bit of a stretch, as I doubt any mafia conspirators would so haphazardly recall such information into the public pool. Secondly, the accused mentioned they "may" random post. The fact that they did not drew scrutiny from the quoted posts above. Once more I must draw from the rich and glorious history of our beloved Moonlit Tropics Krackens. Any time someone has a non-random vote, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. It means thought was put into the vote. Random voting is the stuff of cowards. And as for the scrutiny of "why read through their posts?", I seek to remind those gathered here that information is key. Reading and re-reading and re-re-reading should be encouraged, not suspected. Knowledge is power.

Finally I will address the gargoyle that agreed with Diedre's postulation. Given the vote manipulation that is out there, I disagree that civvies getting votes is something we can afford to let happen "as long as they don't get lynched".


So those two are on the radar of this King Regent.

You will all then recall The following. I will highlight the points I wish to discuss in depth, as well as cut out the flufferousity that does not pertain to my theorificating, as the original quot is rather bookish in nature.

Gobnait Gingeruite wrote:Yay for no NK!!


Moving on to Queran:

Queran Gloomsoul wrote:Attention: The Illustrious Me, King Regent of the Moonlit Krackens, Protector of the (table of) Peace, Conqueror of Squidmark the Malignant, Defender of the Crowned Jewels of His Majesty Don Cheadle-Kracken, Singer of Hyms, Rhymer of Rhymes, Maker of Lists and Rambler in Charge of the Doctrines of our Holy and Most Serene Kingdom of the Moonlit Krackens, do so cast my vote for Callic Lustroushair, Deeming the persons herein named to be of ill repute and dangerous intent. I declare this with all the sovereignty of the Kingdom of the Moonlit Krackens, from this Moon till our last, Praise be to Don Cheadle-Kracken.

Buried somewhere in this gem is his vote for Caillic, with no reason attached. When he was later questioned about why he voted Caillic by Bronwyn, he replied:

Queran Gloomsoul wrote:Delightful Bronwin Mightyfeet:

The Illustrious Me, etc. etc. Decided to vote for Callic Lustroushair after reading over their posts as I promised I would read over all posts. After doing so I noticed their post stating their vote for for Ameerah Frolicstag, with the expressed hope that Ameerah was not lynched for such an unhappy reason.

Where I come from, we Moonlit Tropics Krackens are taught by the mighty Don Cheadle-Kracken that if you truly do not wish for someone to get lynched, you will vote for someone else.

This seems, at first glance, to be a solid-enough reason to vote for someone on Day 1. As many of us have noted, pings tend to be small for the first lynch. Now we know the Caillic was just expressing uncertainty about his vote, which was totally innocent.

However, the timing of this explanation pings me pretty sharply. Again, no reason was given for the vote, and this was produced when asked for. It concerns me quite a bit. Now for Bronwyn's response, with a bit of setup. In a previous post, Bronwyn had mentioned her intent to randomize among possible candidates unless something else came up, then after Queran gave his reason for her vote, this:

Bronwyn Mightyfeet wrote: O Great Illustrious You, etc. etc. I did notice the expressed hope that Ameerah was not lynched and thought it very odd. I also noticed s/he did not respond to the vote placed for her earlier, giving us her side of the story. In gypsy land the innocent always defend themselves. As a member of the Table of Peace I look toward Caillic Lustroushair for a vote, unless the votes come in for me or do not come in before i have to vote from the two missing Table of Happiness voters. Without knowing how they will vote or if they vote for me I will be forced to vote for Poisondart in defense. We shall see how it goes, and again Praise to your leader!

She says Ameerah would have defended herself if she were innocent, implying that she believes Caillic voted for a baddie. Then she agrees completely with Queran and says she'll vote Caillic unless she needs to save herself! The strategy here is truly mind-boggling. If Caillic truly voted for a baddie, as she seems to believe, why on Earth (or whatever planet we all come from) would he be baddie himself? That just wouldn't make sense on Day 1, as Ameerah had virtually no chance of being lynched anyway. Thus, she implies Cailllic is good while also voting him. She throws in a bit about saving her vote for self-preservation, which again doesn't make much sense as no particular suspicion was directed at her.

The back-and-forth between her a Queran, and even the similarity in the style of their posts (throwing titles back and forth, etc.), looks very much like something cooked up in BTSC to me. I believe that, with so many candidates to choose from, Queran picked one he knew was good and saw whether he could pick up a few easy civ votes. I've done this before as a baddie, and when the victim flips civ it's easy to later accuse your followers of bandwagon voting to make them look bad instead of you. I'm not sure yet whether Carmen fits the duped civ profile yet, I'll want to hear her response to what I said about her first. Bronwyn's vote interests me the most of all. Her going along with Queran's reason so easily after never mentioning Caillic before looks very bad indeed to me, but her strategy just seems so bad if I imagine her as bad or civ that I'm really not sure what to make of it. When she voted she decided Caillic over Jorhan, so I think if she's bad then Jorhan is too and she was protecting him. If she's civ I doubt it says anything about Jorhan.

I'm sorry for this book, I know you're busy people. To summarize, based on the above evidence I believe very strongly that Queran is bad, and I don't exactly feel great about Bronwyn either. If they do both prove bad, Jorhan is a likely compatriot, but that's still extremely speculative. Thoughts?

And now, On to my deductionations!

Firstly, let me lay out what I believe is the case here:

I believe, after seeing that I placed Her Stonieness on my radar, Gobnait Gingeruite panicked and, in an attempt to "nip it in the bud" whipped up a fancy enough looking flimsy reversal. Known in the common tounge as a "No U".

I can deduce it's flimsyhood based on the following.

1. Her Magnificence, The Statuesque, Dodger of Pigeon Poo, used as one of her points against me that I produced an explanation for my vote when asked. I will admit that not immediately explaining my vote beyond "I get a bad feeling" was short sighted. But, I think it would have been exceedingly more suspicious had I not produced an explanation after being asked, don't you?

2. I find it most curious indeed that Gobnait claims to have spent a whole morning looking through the lynch results and building this case against myself and Mightyfeet. I find this curious because a larger point of her case, which I have again highlighted above for ease of access, possesses a grand, if not case-crippling flaw. I will requote it down here, for comparitory purposes.

She says Ameerah would have defended herself if she were innocent, implying that she believes Caillic voted for a baddie

A very good point, if it were in any way based upon factual happenings. Below is what Bronwyn Mightyfeet actually said:

Bronwyn Mightyfeet wrote:

Caillic Lustroushair wrote:I shall vote for Ameerah Frolicstag, as they were the last one to sit at the Table of Happiness, in hopes that they are not actually belynched for such an unhappy reason.

Caillic, was there anything you wanted to say about the vote for you?

As is plain to see, Bronwyn did in fact question Caillic about the vote for Caillic. And, found the lack of response unnerving. I bring this up not as a defense of Bronwyn, but to note the curious mistake made by someone claiming they've read over things and have built a strong case.

I think this case was done up to discredit myself and to throw the scent from Gobnait. How would it discredit me? I believe Gobnait needed to make me look suspicious, hence the mentioning of my lack of vote reason until I produced a vote reason. I think to strengthen this case she looked to tie me to someone, hence the noting of the similarities between the humorous posts of myself and Bronwyn Mightyfeet, She Without Socks, Stomper of Dirt, Maker of Toe Jam. But it wasn't enough to tie us together, I think Gobnait sought out a reason to make Bronwyn appear just as guilty as she wanted me to appear, once again placing a false face of legitimacy on her case. Unfortunately for her, she sloppily chose a very weak and clearly false piece of evidence. Now, I hear the calls of "Oh well honest mistake" already. Yet, good friends, It is clear throughout Gobnait's post that she had done a great deal of reading and research before placing her theory out for all to see. She makes reference to a great deal of posts, indicating such. So, if she'd truly read through it all, she would know Bronwyn's concerns lay with Caillac, not Ameerah.

Is this post perchance one of those to go thrice through Google Translate?

I totes understand the need to perplex The Spinner of Lies and his Scrabblesque power, but seriously, thou dost lay it on a bit thick.

Nothing else to add there Bac?

votes Poisondart


I am convinced or at least reasonably convinced enough from the arguments that Poisondart is baddie.

I tried to follow some of the postings yesterday on my phone but I totally missed this post by Gobnait that tries to tie me and Queran together as bad and also makes a false statement about my question to Caillic about her vote. If i had seen it I would have responded. At this point, Queran has already pointed out the problems with Gobnaits post and the implications thereof so I'm going to confine my comment to the back and forth between us that he/she finds problematic.

I play these games to have fun. I thought Queran's post was funny with respect to the names he/she had made up so I replied in kind. We had a little fun. I have seen others having fun, I thought I would have a little bit too. That's all it was. I do not have bts with Queran and maybe Gobnait is new but to cook up something in bts about kidding around in the thread would be ridiculous. I also find it odd that Gobnait wouldn't also think the kidding around I was doing about finding wine at the castle was also an example of me and a teammate cooking up some kidding around to be taken to the thread. It seems the suspicion only exists when it's tied to Queran.

I played a game once long ago and far away that involved a complex code cooked up in the thread about wine, so perchance the person who set forth that argument also played that game? I also play these games for fun, and in these personas, it is even more amusing to banter a bit, and I for one will discount suspicions of people based on mythical based banter with no other basis behind them.

And Queran, I have spoken quite a bit as is my wont. My point there was that your post is so full of hyperbolic terminology and excessive verbiage that it is hard to follow, even for one such as myself, no stranger to excessive verbiage & hyperbole as it were.

This humble Pixie asks you to tone it back just a notch, so that your magnificent and erudite texts may be better understood by all, and not just admired for their cleverness

Bac Wunderelin wrote:I played a game once long ago and far away that involved a complex code cooked up in the thread about wine, so perchance the person who set forth that argument also played that game? I also play these games for fun, and in these personas, it is even more amusing to banter a bit, and I for one will discount suspicions of people based on mythical based banter with no other basis behind them.

And Queran, I have spoken quite a bit as is my wont. My point there was that your post is so full of hyperbolic terminology and excessive verbiage that it is hard to follow, even for one such as myself, no stranger to excessive verbiage & hyperbole as it were.

This humble Pixie asks you to tone it back just a notch, so that your magnificent and erudite texts may be better understood by all, and not just admired for their cleverness

I'd hardly call adding suffixes to a half dozen words all that confusing. I was speaking more to "Do you have anything to add to/about my actual post".

Some interesting points; I disagree that any non random vote is a good vote, and I feel that regardless of who Caillic would have voted for, she would have said she wished they were not lynched for such an unhappy reason. Like most of us, she had no basis for making a decision, especially based on the table dynamic.

In the post you quote, Mainchin did not say he was definitely going random, he said he might, and wanted to read their posts first.

As I said, some interesting points, but I am not in total agreement with many of them. I think some reaching is occurring, although that certainly does not mean anything negative; we are all searching for reason this early in a thread where many seem to be having trouble finding their way. But if we all suspected the same folk, these competitions would be dull indeed

What are your opinions on Jorhan & Laine?

The case against Jorhan seems quite good and strong, so I'll be voting for Jorhan.

There have been murmurings among the sunken halls of the Purple Sea Elves that the unanimity of opinion regarding He of the Bloody Moons Dragons may be cause for concern, yet logic compels us to conclude that his motivations are far from pure, so I will join my brothers in casting a ballot for the unfortunate Jorhan, with the hope that I have not been led into error.

We (meaning the Puppet Magicians) have spent some time examining the 4 people that we had mentioned we found suspicious. We will be casting our vote for Jorhan today, because while there are some good cases to be made on the other 3, we do not feel quite as confident about the other 3. There are certainly some issues that pop up in Gobnait's case, and certainly few cases made on Day 2 are fool-proof, but we still have enough doubts in our minds to go with someone we: 1) feel more confident in and 2) feel would bring greater information if lynched. So Jorhan today it is.

Bronwyn Mightyfeet wrote:Hello Finnian, do you have any thoughts on today's vote?

I might have to read a bit more. These names give me no reference point, so it's harder I find. I do kinda agree with the ping someone posted about Mainchin (was that the name?) though.

The back and forth between camp Gobnait and camp Queran, as it were, has been a treat to follow. Both sides make valid, reasonable arguments, but at this point, I am more inclined to trust the former. The argument against Jorhan, Queran, and Bronwyn is based on the assumption that the late Callic voters were trying to protect Jorhan. I believe this is a valid, entirely reasonable assumption, and one I am willing to place my bets on today.

Another point regarding Jorhan that I think is worth mentioning. There was no kill last night. There could be several reasons for this that we can only speculate over. It is indeed curious that reading over the mafia roles, I find no mention of a NK ability. As a working hypothesis, we may assume that Rumpel has that power. Our charismatic hostesses also confirmed earlier in the game that a player who misses the lynch vote might not use his night powers. In that light, I believe it's a strong possibility that Rumpel might not have voted on day one. And we all know who else didn't vote on day one. Jorhan.

Coincidence? Indeed it could be, but at this time I do believe we might have gotten ourselves the baddest of them all.

I vote Jorhan.

Excellent observations, Shand.

All right, I've heard enough. I've voted Poisondart.

Rumple may well be a killer, but the nixie has secrets. The results of the first night poll may have played into the lack of a nightkill, but it seems more likely that one of those who neglected his civic duty found himself powerless. My vote will probably go to Jorhan today, unless a sound reason is put forth for the spreading of votes. In which case, I will look towards Carmen Brightsun.

I really don't like to vote for someone who has not responded to the allegations against him or her but I'm afraid I won't be around later to vote so I need to do it now. I know that I did not vote Caillic to save Jorhan but that doesn't mean Jorhan isn't bad. It's what he did after the vote that drives my suspicion of him. So again, I will vote Jorhan now in case I can't get back until after the vote.

vote Jorhan

Queran Gloomsoul wrote: You will all then recall The following. I will highlight the points I wish to discuss in depth, as well as cut out the flufferousity that does not pertain to my theorificating, as the original quot is rather bookish in nature.

Gobnait Gingeruite wrote:Yay for no NK!!

Now for Bronwyn's response, with a bit of setup. In a previous post, Bronwyn had mentioned her intent to randomize among possible candidates unless something else came up, then after Queran gave his reason for her vote, this:

Bronwyn Mightyfeet wrote: O Great Illustrious You, etc. etc. I did notice the expressed hope that Ameerah was not lynched and thought it very odd. I also noticed s/he did not respond to the vote placed for her earlier, giving us her side of the story. In gypsy land the innocent always defend themselves. As a member of the Table of Peace I look toward Caillic Lustroushair for a vote, unless the votes come in for me or do not come in before i have to vote from the two missing Table of Happiness voters. Without knowing how they will vote or if they vote for me I will be forced to vote for Poisondart in defense. We shall see how it goes, and again Praise to your leader!

She says Ameerah would have defended herself if she were innocent, implying that she believes Caillic voted for a baddie. Then she agrees completely with Queran and says she'll vote Caillic unless she needs to save herself! The strategy here is truly mind-boggling. If Caillic truly voted for a baddie, as she seems to believe, why on Earth (or whatever planet we all come from) would he be baddie himself? That just wouldn't make sense on Day 1, as Ameerah had virtually no chance of being lynched anyway. Thus, she implies Cailllic is good while also voting him. She throws in a bit about saving her vote for self-preservation, which again doesn't make much sense as no particular suspicion was directed at her.

And now, On to my deductionations!

Firstly, let me lay out what I believe is the case here:

I believe, after seeing that I placed Her Stonieness on my radar, Gobnait Gingeruite panicked and, in an attempt to "nip it in the bud" whipped up a fancy enough looking flimsy reversal. Known in the common tounge as a "No U".

I can deduce it's flimsyhood based on the following.

1. Her Magnificence, The Statuesque, Dodger of Pigeon Poo, used as one of her points against me that I produced an explanation for my vote when asked. I will admit that not immediately explaining my vote beyond "I get a bad feeling" was short sighted. But, I think it would have been exceedingly more suspicious had I not produced an explanation after being asked, don't you?

2. I find it most curious indeed that Gobnait claims to have spent a whole morning looking through the lynch results and building this case against myself and Mightyfeet. I find this curious because a larger point of her case, which I have again highlighted above for ease of access, possesses a grand, if not case-crippling flaw. I will requote it down here, for comparitory purposes.

She says Ameerah would have defended herself if she were innocent, implying that she believes Caillic voted for a baddie

A very good point, if it were in any way based upon factual happenings. Below is what Bronwyn Mightyfeet actually said:

Bronwyn Mightyfeet wrote:

Caillic Lustroushair wrote:I shall vote for Ameerah Frolicstag, as they were the last one to sit at the Table of Happiness, in hopes that they are not actually belynched for such an unhappy reason.

Caillic, was there anything you wanted to say about the vote for you?

As is plain to see, Bronwyn did in fact question Caillic about the vote for Caillic. And, found the lack of response unnerving. I bring this up not as a defense of Bronwyn, but to note the curious mistake made by someone claiming they've read over things and have built a strong case.

I think this case was done up to discredit myself and to throw the scent from Gobnait. How would it discredit me? I believe Gobnait needed to make me look suspicious, hence the mentioning of my lack of vote reason until I produced a vote reason. I think to strengthen this case she looked to tie me to someone, hence the noting of the similarities between the humorous posts of myself and Bronwyn Mightyfeet, She Without Socks, Stomper of Dirt, Maker of Toe Jam. But it wasn't enough to tie us together, I think Gobnait sought out a reason to make Bronwyn appear just as guilty as she wanted me to appear, once again placing a false face of legitimacy on her case. Unfortunately for her, she sloppily chose a very weak and clearly false piece of evidence. Now, I hear the calls of "Oh well honest mistake" already. Yet, good friends, It is clear throughout Gobnait's post that she had done a great deal of reading and research before placing her theory out for all to see. She makes reference to a great deal of posts, indicating such. So, if she'd truly read through it all, she would know Bronwyn's concerns lay with Caillac, not Ameerah.

Now hooooooooooooold up! You, Queran Gloomsould, Dweller in the Deep, Sunderer of Ships, Weaver of Lies, are, well, lying! I never questioned the fact that Bronwyn (may her gypsy feet ever dance on soft grass) asked Caillic about his vote! That she certainly did, as you astutely pointed out in quoting her. What I said was that Bronwyn stated that she believed Ameerah to be bad, or at least highly suspicious. The bit of the quote (which in my original post was in a larger paragraph) is here:

Bronwyn Mightyfeet wrote: I also noticed s/he did not respond to the vote placed for her earlier, giving us her side of the story. In gypsy land the innocent always defend themselves. As a member of the Table of Peace I look toward Caillic Lustroushair for a vote, unless the votes come in for me or do not come in before i have to vote from the two missing Table of Happiness voters.

The bolded is where she says it, and the bit after the bolded is where she says she'll vote Caillic anyway, despite the fact that she thinks he voted for someone she's suspicious of. Civvie behavior? I think not!

The fact that you pulled the wrong quotes in your defense so that you could misinterpret my argument makes me only more certain of your evil, and more certain that my argument was right. Bronwyn's unhesitating agreement with you, despite her knowing what she said, makes me nearly certain she is evil too.

Even disregarding the style of your posts (which I'm willing to throw out. As I admitted in my original case, it doesn't mean a thing by itself, and Shand makes a good point about why it should be disregarded), I believe we have found 2 baddies in you and Bronwyn. You, Dweller of Deep Waters, Tentacular Spinner of Lies, shall receive my vote today.

Bronwyn Mightyfeet wrote:

Rhinfrew Flowingrass wrote:Only three people chose grandma's house, including me. Considering the two others who are watching granny crochet and dip snuff (some bloke named Lawrence Welk comes on in a minute, so she asks that I "hurry the hell up"):

I don't know Shand from a shandy, and I don't much like shandies. If I'm going to drink lemonade, I'll add it to vodka, not beer. Shand has been helpful, but Shand voted for Caillic, and Carmen voted Caillic mentioning trust. Trust on Day 1...hell, I hardly have trust on Day 5. Bothers me.

I think people are making sense about Jorhan. Jorhan missed the vote, and then within the hour proceeded to analyze all of the Caillic voters, going so far as to praise Shand for "gun sticking." Sounds like a net cast wide if you ask me:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=148&p=19514#p19514

My only reservation regarding Jorhan comes from last night's poll. Thoughts?

linki: I'm not saying there are winners and losers. I'm just saying one choice had an overwhelming number of people vote for it. That's all I mean by "win."

Jorhan missing the vote and then coming right in to analyze everyone who voted Caillic pinged me as well, and I thought it was odd he praised Shand and then made that comment about me trying to hold him hostage. I didn't understand why he characterized Shand as gun sticking to begin with, and as I've already said his comment that I was trying to hold him hostage did not make any sense given the situation. We've got another day to see what develops but so far I'm the most suspicious of Jorhan.

What part of gun-sticking do you not understand? Shand said he would vote for either me or Caillic, me because of inactivity and Caillic for a ping. I posted a bit, he withdrew that objection, Caillic didn't assuage his ping, and he voted? I'll admit, I misinterpreted the situation with you, and hostage-taking was a bit much. Got a little carried away, because I feel like you're trying to set me up. Why does my analysis ping you? I missed the vote due to time differences, was on the forums anyway, thought I'd contribute. People make far too big a deal of post order and timing, I think, especially when it's convenient to pile blame.

I'm beginning to see why you need those glasses, Stone Hearted One. Do the Shout-and-twist all you like, doesn't make you right.

There is much, much more than meets the eye in this game. The seven mystery roles play into that; in a game with such a number of participants, only one grouping of lawless folk seems a stretch. This as well as the ambiguousness of Bea & Roxys utterances (which is likely intentional in a tale abounding with such mystery as this is) makes me think we will have to keep careful track of who does and does not exercise their poll rights.

I picked Jorhan Day One as he had said almost nothing when I placed my ballot. Then he suddenly appears, then says nothing again, then makes a large post soon after missing the closing of the ballot. That alone makes me think he is up to nothing beneficial. So I will repeat my Day One choice.

Chooses Jorhan

I also want to say that, though the vote evidence for Jorhan seems solid to me as well, I think the exchange between myself, Queran, and Bronwyn is nearly incontrovertible thread evidence that they are up to no good. Feel free to tell me if you think I'm getting tunnel vision, but I encourage others to read those two and decide whether their motivations could possibly be good, and to vote them either today or tomorrow if you agree with me

This post is directed at Gobnait. Edit's by myself are in Brackets and highlighted orange, or bolded/enlarged.

Bronwyn Mightyfeet's original question "What do you think about the vote against you" was directed at Calliac

In reference to this question, Bronwyn then stated the following:

O Great Illustrious You, etc. etc. I did notice [Calliac's] expressed hope that Ameerah was not lynched and thought it very odd. I also noticed [Calliac] did not respond to the vote placed for her earlier, giving us her side of the story. In gypsy land the innocent always defend themselves. As a member of the Table of Peace I look toward Caillic Lustroushair for a vote, unless the votes come in for me or do not come in before i have to vote from the two missing Table of Happiness voters. Without knowing how they will vote or if they vote for me I will be forced to vote for Poisondart in defense. We shall see how it goes, and again Praise to your leader!

Gobnait tried to tie myself to Bronwyn very flimsily, as highlighted in my earlier, fanciful post. Go back and look, I won't bog the thread down with another megapost.

The *actual* point I was making was that Gobnait, I believe, deliberately overlooked the fact that both Bronwyn's line of questioning and the subsequent reference to that questioning was in reference to Calliac, not Ameerah. Gobnait slid Ameerah in there because it fit her "NO U" better.

Linki:

If Jorhan ends up a blameless innocent, I think it is then unlikely that Queran and Bronwyn would have risked themselves protecting him if they are evildoers. In that case, I will be forced to give Gobnait another look. If, however, Jorhan is revealed as I expect him to be, then Gobnait's case is very strong indeed. We shall know in a few hours.

Queran, you answered not my query; what is your opinion of Jorhan and Laine?

Crosspost with Dilan; well spoken.

I wanted to give Gobnait the Gorgeous ample time to address my theory, and seeing her response has been just as underhanded as I anticipated it would be. She responded to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a sentence of my post, twisted it just for flavor, and shouted from the mountaintops more "no u" stuff.

Vote Gobnait

Linki: Alot of the Jorhan stuff seems to be connected to myself and connected to Bronwyn. Since I know myself and Bronwyn are not connected, and that I was not trying to save Jorhan when I made my vote, that diminishes alot of the validity of that suspicion in my eyes. As for Laine, I am undecided either way. Defending against Gobnait, putting together that monster post, and etc etc. has taken alot of my time and attention.

I read back because I was a little confused *when* it was that you asked me that, and I found this which I think deserves a bit of a response. Which again, I'll put in bold orange.

Bac Wunderelin wrote:Some interesting points; I disagree that any non random vote is a good vote, and I feel that regardless of who Caillic would have voted for, she would have said she wished they were not lynched for such an unhappy reason. Like most of us, she had no basis for making a decision, especially based on the table dynamic.

I feel that any vote which is based on anything other than random blind luck is a good vote, or better than a random vote I should say. Maybe we'll agree to disagree. As for the Caillic thing, sure, agreed.

In the post you quote, Mainchin did not say he was definitely going random, he said he might, and wanted to read their posts first.

I agree. In fact, I did say Mainchin did say "may". I'll quote that post below this one.

As I said, some interesting points, but I am not in total agreement with many of them. I think some reaching is occurring, although that certainly does not mean anything negative; we are all searching for reason this early in a thread where many seem to be having trouble finding their way. But if we all suspected the same folk, these competitions would be dull indeed

Interesting points, sure, but nothing you address here is valid towards anything I asked your opinion about. I was asking you about what you thought about my theory regarding Gobnait.

What are your opinions on Jorhan & Laine?

Secondly, the accused mentioned they "may" random post.

So speaking of not answering one's post.. I have to start wondering why you were initially quite indignant/indifferent/uninterested in the content of that post, and here seem not to have really "read" it at all or seem uninterested in providing an opinion on Gobnait?

Queran Gloomsoul wrote:I wanted to give Gobnait the Gorgeous ample time to address my theory, and seeing her response has been just as underhanded as I anticipated it would be. She responded to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a sentence of my post, twisted it just for flavor, and shouted from the mountaintops more "no u" stuff.

Vote Gobnait

Linki: Alot of the Jorhan stuff seems to be connected to myself and connected to Bronwyn. Since I know myself and Bronwyn are not connected, and that I was not trying to save Jorhan when I made my vote, that diminishes alot of the validity of that suspicion in my eyes. As for Laine, I am undecided either way. Defending against Gobnait, putting together that monster post, and etc etc. has taken alot of my time and attention.

Yourself? My suspicions of Jorhan have zero to do with you; my potential suspicion of you has everything to do with Jorhan; a very pertinent distinction. I suspect Jorhan for his own actions, and also becasue to some extent of Laine monitoring who was voting for Jorhan, when most of us had to keep referring to a list when deciding on whom to cast a ballot.

Your actions in relation to Jorhan are very secondary at this point. Should he turn up as a criminal, then you will come under my scrutiny. But saying suspicion of Jorhan has to do with you is putting the cart before the horse.

And your ginormous post is what is making me suspect you, TBH, more than anything that went before as it relates to Jorhan. It appears to me that it is an attempted distraction, an attempt to refocus people from Jorhan onto Gobnait. Before this post, I had no real opinion of you in this game; afterwards, not so much.

Full of flowery language and excessive to the needs quoting and bolding, it is confusing, intentionally so IMO. Many people with less time than you or I will come in, skim that, and say "Wow, a giant multi quoting post with bolding, etc. That Queran sure must be right about Gobnait, look at all of the points he's making." I have known several people who do this kind of thing when they are part of a Gang of Naughties solely to appear nice.

My opinion of Gobnait depends very much so, as does my opinion of you, on how this lynch comes up.

A postscript: I think that there may be an entire unknown group of Naughties out there due to the seven more players than characters. So even if Jorhan is determined to be benevolent, that would clear no one automatically. Should he turn up malicious, however, it would implicate some people to my way of thinking, very much so.

Bac Wunderelin wrote:

Queran Gloomsoul wrote:I wanted to give Gobnait the Gorgeous ample time to address my theory, and seeing her response has been just as underhanded as I anticipated it would be. She responded to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a sentence of my post, twisted it just for flavor, and shouted from the mountaintops more "no u" stuff.

Vote Gobnait

Linki: Alot of the Jorhan stuff seems to be connected to myself and connected to Bronwyn. Since I know myself and Bronwyn are not connected, and that I was not trying to save Jorhan when I made my vote, that diminishes alot of the validity of that suspicion in my eyes. As for Laine, I am undecided either way. Defending against Gobnait, putting together that monster post, and etc etc. has taken alot of my time and attention.

Yourself? My suspicions of Jorhan have zero to do with you; my potential suspicion of you has everything to do with Jorhan; a very pertinent distinction. I suspect Jorhan for his own actions, and also becasue to some extent of Laine monitoring who was voting for Jorhan, when most of us had to keep referring to a list when deciding on whom to cast a ballot.

Your actions in relation to Jorhan are very secondary at this point. Should he turn up as a criminal, then you will come under my scrutiny. But saying suspicion of Jorhan has to do with you is putting the cart before the horse.

And your ginormous post is what is making me suspect you, TBH, more than anything that went before as it relates to Jorhan. It appears to me that it is an attempted distraction, an attempt to refocus people from Jorhan onto Gobnait. Before this post, I had no real opinion of you in this game; afterwards, not so much.

Full of flowery language and excessive to the needs quoting and bolding, it is confusing, intentionally so IMO. Many people with less time than you or I will come in, skim that, and say "Wow, a giant multi quoting post with bolding, etc. That Queran sure must be right about Gobnait, look at all of the points he's making." I have known several people who do this kind of thing when they are part of a Gang of Naughties solely to appear nice.

My opinion of Gobnait depends very much so, as does my opinion of you, on how this lynch comes up.

You seem confused. I didn't mean YOUR thoughts on Jorhan. I meant the general cloud over his head at this point. I've seen alot of people discussing Jorhan AND Queran AND Bronwyn, and alot of "if Johran is bad it stands to reason Queran and Bronwyn are as well" Since I know I'm not bad, and I have no connection to either Bronwyn or Jorhan, it diminishes my suspicion of Jorhan, because all the talk I'm seeing is exactly what you just said "My opinion on you depends on Jorhan being either civ or baddie."


As for my Ginormous post being suspect.. Tough Tentacles bro, If I see faulty logic and no uing and deviousness, I'm gonna point it out. Bolding etc was used to make things easier to see and read, if that bugs you, Tough Tentacles :P

I am giving my opinion, nothing more. So do you think Jorhan is potentially nice? And tbh, I saw more people saying they think he may be a danger to us based on his behavior during the lynch. The behahvior of those surrounding him perhaps added to that aura, but I think most people are looking at him based on his own foibles.

And no problems brother I also calls them as I sees them, and if i see legerdemain and redirection and manipulation, I'm gonna point it out as well.

So we're going to sacrifice me, about whom the case and information are far less obvious, to get intel about Queran and Bronwyn, about whom the cases are more solid. Brilliant. After this lynch turns out, remember to pick your targets more carefully. Voting Queran.

You seem awful defesive of ol' Gobby recently Bac.. Are you sure you're not redirecting a tad yourself?

I didn't vote Caillic on Day 1 to protect Jorhan. So, I will gladly vote Jorhan now.

I guess I will vote Jorhan also. Too much to read lol

Queran Gloomsoul wrote:You seem awful defesive of ol' Gobby recently Bac.. Are you sure you're not redirecting a tad yourself?

My Good Kracken, no. I have not defended him once. I said that, like you, my thoughts on Gobnait depend on how Jorhan flips. That would make a weak defense, and indeed, could also be applied to yourself as well as Gobnait.

His theories, like yours, need further development based on how they play out. I am not sure what I would be redirecting from; as soon as the last lynch ended, I said I suspected Jorhan, I enumerated why, and that is the person who received my ballot. I have been the epitome of consistency. And my suspicions after this day will be built on today; one day at a time, as information is revealed.

So I am not sold on Gobnait (or yourself) being naughty or nice.

Bac Wunderelin wrote:

Queran Gloomsoul wrote:You seem awful defesive of ol' Gobby recently Bac.. Are you sure you're not redirecting a tad yourself?

My Good Kracken, no. I have not defended him once. I said that, like you, my thoughts on Gobnait depend on how Jorhan flips. That would make a weak defense, and indeed, could also be applied to yourself as well as Gobnait.

His theories, like yours, need further development based on how they play out. I am not sure what I would be redirecting from; as soon as the last lynch ended, I said I suspected Jorhan, I enumerated why, and that is the person who received my ballot. I have been the epitome of consistency. And my suspicions after this day will be built on today; one day at a time, as information is revealed.

So I am not sold on Gobnait (or yourself) being naughty or nice.

Fair play. Though I'm just intrigued at your recent aggressiveness after I hinted at having you under my microscope a bit more. When I say "defensive" I mean that aggressiveness, plus your initial evasion of my post, etc. I might have sounded a bit confusing there.

Bac Wunderelin wrote:A postscript: I think that there may be an entire unknown group of Naughties out there due to the seven more players than characters. So even if Jorhan is determined to be benevolent, that would clear no one automatically. Should he turn up malicious, however, it would implicate some people to my way of thinking, very much so.

Reads to me as base covering FWIW.