WW26: The Masquerade [Game Thread]

[Bert The Bard]

The only thing big thing that Sarah did was attack me aggressively and you cannot get much from that...

I didn't notice her doing that really.

Did you review her posts? It's the only thing she did on day 1. I'm kicking myself for not pursuing her harder for it.

[Bert The Bard]

As a more vocal wolf, I'm currently suspecting Doctor Saul. Any other opinions on him?

Here are his posts:

Well, that took all of half a dozen posts to devolve into meta arguments. Bravo.

I find agreement with Know-Nothing Jon. Lady Elizabeth almost seemed to be casting a net with her posts, and raked in a fresh catch of eager votes. Are they wolves? It does not take cunning to accuse statements like hers, so I will drink from my glass and decide for now that it is eagerness and nerves getting the better of honest intentions.

Expanding on this, it seems any last names are tied to our roles. We are all called by our first name, nick name, or both. Any last name received would be interchangeable, and they were received specifically in a role-PM. Last names might yet play a part in this game. They might be used by a role or multiple roles, or they could be part of other gameplay at some point. Whatever it is, there's no need to start guessing. Unless someone has more information, they are no help to us, and should be ignored.

I do not like the way you lead on here, Muriel. You hint of a connection between names and powers, as if you are looking to invite discussion between the two, and then brush it away as if stepping back from the brink. Muriel The Slow, for a nickname like yours you seem to lay out a trap with some cunning

I don't want to play as a female character so I switched my avatar to Courage. Please call me that.

Elizabeth, my dear. If you are looking for ways out of your gender, I may know of a procedure that can help you become the man you always wanted to be. But it is not exactly, shall we say ethical, in this time and age

My surname is Cot, which is what I have lying in the last few hours, trying to recover freom this nasty hangover. I think there was something wrong with that ale.


It seems strange to me that novice hasn't shown up yet. He's usually here right away for these games, ready to boost his post count. Where are you hiding novice?


Darrell

Now to my vote. Rob, you are very eager to attack someone only a few hours into the game. While I find it hard to believe that a wolf would rather go on an attack like that than stay low, I find it even harder to believe that a villager would be so convinced of someone's guiltiness right off the bat that they would go on such an attack. Especially when I know that the person you are attacking is a villager, and one of the few contributors so far.

Eh? Buddies?

Sarah, while I find Muriel suspicious, I do think this question has already been provided for; she was referring to herself in the third personage. Blast, now I cannot find the quote of it for the life of me.

Fat Rose, I cannot say I follow you're attack on Jon. I will re-read to digest the intent, but I thought he was clearly against those that would vote Elizabeth. If there was a contradiction later it escaped my first perusal.

Re: Muriel

My allegation appears to have been overshadowed by Muriel's fight with Rob The Filch. I felt like she was laying a trap before to suss out power roles when she spoke of last names being tied to them. I felt that because I started to respond with an observation about my last name / lack thereof, and then I realized that this would give away whether or not I had a power role. Thankfully I caught it on the preview and realized that could have been the intent all along. Very cleverly done, and she has not responded to this accusation at all, focusing only on Rob The Filch.

Here is the passage again for reference:

I re-read my role-PM and the only other piece of information is that I was given a last name. Do you think this matters at all guys?

Yes, it most definitely matters. If it didn't, it would have been included in your profile name. There has to be a reason why it is hidden.

Expanding on this, it seems any last names are tied to our roles. We are all called by our first name, nick name, or both. Any last name received would be interchangeable, and they were received specifically in a role-PM. Last names might yet play a part in this game. They might be used by a role or multiple roles, or they could be part of other gameplay at some point. Whatever it is, there's no need to start guessing. Unless someone has more information, they are no help to us, and should be ignored.

*****
To Know-Nothing Jon:

Lady Elizabeth

why sign up if you don't want to play by the rules?

I don't think you broke any rules, Lady Elizabeth. So the above just seems like an excuse to vote for you. Following the bard's lead. If it was just bandwagoning because there's nothing to go on anyway, then there was no need to make excuses.

Jon, why did you think Widow Edith was accusing Lady Elizabeth of breaking rules? I don't see it as that; I see her asking Elizabeth why she would want to play if she is not a fan of the masquarade rule to begin with.



*****
Re: Friar Andrew

Sir Percival, for being more influential than me.

How exactly is Muriel's post a wall of text? It's 2 paragraphs, and ~10 lines on my screen. Seems an entirely appropriate length for a mildly elaborate "hey idiots, stop analysing useless meta" post.

Lacking a surname here as well.

haha suck it fatty

sir percy v up in this shiz

Fair enough.

unvote

Friar, you let go there really easy.

why wouldnt the friar let go? His vote was only a joke vote, based on influence. Further, he showed great humility backing down in the face of an insult. Very fitting of a Friar.

But why feel the need to unvote? If it is a joke vote and obviously one then what is the harm in leaving it until he finds something worth exploring further?

It is not my top suspicion but something I think is worth making a note of.

I speculated that the last names might play a part in this game, and we should shut the fuck up about them for the time being else we risk screwing up. Isn't that exactly what you say you wanted to happen, Saul? Why do you feel it is some kind of a trap by wolf-Muriel? Shouldn't wolf-Muriel rather shut up and let all the villagers reveal their secret role-PM information rather than stop them from doing it?

I explained that in my post I voted for you with. I suppose you had tunnel vision on The Filch, understandable as that is (which is why I repeated myself again now). I thought it was cunningly done, to bring up the topic and then dismiss it, putting it in everyone's mind and yet having an out of saying "I told you all not to speculately." Perhaps a bit too intricate a plot? That's what I am considering.

Tell me this: why did you bring it up in the first place if you were only going to dismiss it?

Well, whatever Widow Edith meant, she didn't in any way say why Lady Elizabeth was scummy for it, so it reads like an excuse either way to me. I don't know if the rules being referred to are supposed to be game rules or just unwritten rules, but I don't see how it changes anything.

That...

...is a good point.

Unrelated - isn't this also a good point, Doctor Saul?

Tell me this: why did you bring it up in the first place if you were only going to dismiss it?

That's the thing, I did not bring it up. Courage brought it up, revealing that he had a last name in the role-PM and asking whether it might be important.

Ah, but in this case I disagree. Elizabeth may have brought it up, but the manner that they both discuss it is what is important. Actually, much like how you explained to me that with Widow Edith it wasn't so much the rules question that mattered but more of the why behind using it as a reasoning for a vote.

Elizabeth brings it forward first here:

I re-read my role-PM and the only other piece of information is that I was given a last name. Do you think this matters at all guys?

And then Muriel responds

Yes, it most definitely matters. If it didn't, it would have been included in your profile name. There has to be a reason why it is hidden.

Then decides she needs to continue, but without any prompting

Expanding on this, it seems any last names are tied to our roles. We are all called by our first name, nick name, or both. Any last name received would be interchangeable, and they were received specifically in a role-PM. Last names might yet play a part in this game. They might be used by a role or multiple roles, or they could be part of other gameplay at some point. Whatever it is, there's no need to start guessing. Unless someone has more information, they are no help to us, and should be ignored.

Now nobody else has suggested that last names are tied to roles, but Muriel seems to feel the need to:

Firstly, why make that assertion here, which is a pretty bold assertion to make, and then back away and say nobody needs to discuss it? Why make such an assertion that power roles are tied to a last name and speculate on the nature of last names, and then say there's no need to do exactly what she just did. How can you go to that conclusion and then say we shouldn't speak of it and yet give nobody the time to think of it? And like I said, I was about to post on that topic with a point of my own, but immediately realized that the response would give away whether or not I had a power role. Hence, it led to me immediately raising suspicions that the whole point of the exercise was to get people to do what I had almost fallen for.

So she is being untrue, or rather giving a half-truth. She says that Elizabeth brought it up -- Elizabeth only brought up that she had a last name. Muriel was the one that said a last name must be tied to a power role. But then adds we shouldn't speak of it. I feel that it is manipulative.

Expanding on this, it seems any last names are tied to our roles. We are all called by our first name, nick name, or both. Any last name received would be interchangeable, and they were received specifically in a role-PM. Last names might yet play a part in this game. They might be used by a role or multiple roles, or they could be part of other gameplay at some point. Whatever it is, there's no need to start guessing. Unless someone has more information, they are no help to us, and should be ignored.

Who's the liar, again?

Alignment = Villager, Werewolf, 3rd party...
Role = Vanilla, Tiebreaker, Gossiper...
Power Role = Seer, Baner...

You attack me over the semantics between power role and role? Don't you see that even if you eliminate people from one group that helps lessen the number of candidates for another? Are you slow, or something?

And even if you meant Role instead of ANYTHING, the fact is that the argument is that you threw that out there and backed down. Instead you are trying to tie it to whether I meant a specific type of role or not -- which is silly! I am saying that you were trying to find ANY kind of information. And you don't refute it, you just split hairs.

No, I think you are not slow. You are scum, trying to split hairs in order to get away.

Alignment = Villager, Werewolf, 3rd party...
Role = Vanilla, Tiebreaker, Gossiper...
Power Role = Seer, Baner...

You attack me over the semantics between power role and role? Don't you see that even if you eliminate people from one group that helps lessen the number of candidates for another? Are you slow, or something?

And even if you meant Role instead of ANYTHING, the fact is that the argument is that you threw that out there and backed down. Instead you are trying to tie it to whether I meant a specific type of role or not -- which is silly! I am saying that you were trying to find ANY kind of information. And you don't refute it, you just split hairs.

No, I think you are not slow. You are scum, trying to split hairs in order to get away.

What are you even talking about? At this point I'm completely lost to what you're claiming that I'm trying to do. Courage asked a question, and I shared my thoughts on it. You called me a scum for sharing my thoughts, which is acceptable. But you lied about two things I had said, so I corrected you. That's as far as I got in our interactions, but now you've lost me.

I'm not a fan of how you have to slander my arguments by mislabeling them as lies. It's like you are trying to throw mud on me rather than address my points. Much like you accuse only your attackers. You've clarified your point about roles, etc. but that still did not touch on my accusation that you were trying to fish for information by throwing the last name discussion out there and then quickly saying "Oh, but we shouldn't discuss this" - That "but we shouldn't discuss this" (Not an exact quote, before you call me a 'liar' again...) is what is so darn suspicious. Why discuss it and then say we shouldn't? Why then say that you never brought it up, that it was Elizabeth that brought it up -- yet you were the one that brought up names as being tied to roles. If you want a lie, that is one, and you made it, not me.

Am I wrong in thinking that you as well feel that we are two villagers making fools out of ourselves? I noticed that you used to call me a cunning wolf, but in time it has changed to me being slow

Yeah, I'm starting to think that...
Although Brick called you slow first

In the interest of bandwagoning, Friar Andrew.

Agnes, I didn't try to egg anyone on. But I thought Doctor Saul was being weirdly receptive to my arguments compared to a more hard-nosed stance against Muriel.

You expected me to not agree with your argument?
Or perhaps you mean the difference in my attitude towards you and Muriel?

Well, whatever Widow Edith meant, she didn't in any way say why Lady Elizabeth was scummy for it, so it reads like an excuse either way to me. I don't know if the rules being referred to are supposed to be game rules or just unwritten rules, but I don't see how it changes anything.

That...

...is a good point.

Yeah, Saul, I'm talking about the difference in attitude. I thought your question smelled a bit like a "filler" question to begin with, and then your response (above) was a bit... groveling, for lack of a better word. It was a little weird, which is why I asked you a follow-up about Muriel, to gauge your response on that.

Percy isn't the only one trying to role-play. Although I fall out of the RP more and more as I get into the game, so I've hardly been consistent. So yeah, I did a pause there to show that I was about to argue it but then realized that you had a solid point. Excessive? Probably, but I'm also irritated that I've broken character several times now.

I actually like Edith's response, though - that she was voting Elizabeth out of a frustration that someone would sign up for a masquerade game and then throw a pity party that they didn't get a character they liked.

And Muriel... yeah, I'm thinking more and more that Muriel and I are two villagers who are butting heads. The emotion and attitude that Muriel is showing to me is consistent with a villager, and what I thought I had as a slip turns out to mean two different things to the two of us. I need to re-read with that in mind, really, but I also want to enjoy my Sunday. Anyway, Muriel gets a pass for now I think.

x-post with Muriel: Muriel definitely gets a pass. That is a good pick-up, that someone would say that they fail to see the substance behind the arguments and yet then vote for you later. I would like to hear Sister Mary's response as well.

The three of us turning into a voting bloc?
Never would have saw that coming

not thrilled by case on mary. sound like convenient case to target she who cannot defend herself

Sir, you then dispute my conclusions that Muriel appears as a hot-tempered villager would in her reactions today? If you have evidence in refutation of my hypothesis I would like to hear it, as we are still only early on in our first day.

I agree that it would be bad for us to convict Mary while she is gone. Certainly she has time to return? We have 6 hours left, if my reckoning is correct.

Now I feel like I let Muriel play me for a fool. I suppose I am one, I should have checked her facts like Jon did.
Muriel, and Friar Andrew gets a re-read.

Now I feel like I let Muriel play me for a fool. I suppose I am one, I should have checked her facts like Jon did.
Muriel, and Friar Andrew gets a re-read.

The fact that she asked me a few questions changes nothing in the argument. If you agreed with the argument at first, why do you suddenly change your mind when every single point of the argument still stands?

I agreed with the points you wrote as you wrote them. But I did not go back and re-read it, and as Know-Nothing Jon showed, your description of an abrupt change was not what transpired. Between the post you quoted of Sister Mary saying:

On Muriel versus the world. I fail to see the substance behind the arguments.

And then her voting of you, there were many questions, as Jon pointed out, and it seems clear now that I do read it that she was building up suspicion over that time as she asked those questions. In fact, as I skim through I can see you even answered her questions during that period! How can you accuse her of suddenly changing her mind when you were answering those questions that showed her building suspicion?

For example:

Doctor Saul, your studies have certainly made you wise. I am begginning to see the argument against Muriel. She certainly seems to have more information, but I don't necessarily label it as a scum tell just yet. On the matter of a possible connection between power roles and last names, she seems to have conflicting opinions.

I find these two statements difficult to reconcile, posted only 8 minutes apart:

Another wild goose meta chase I want to put a stop to is our profiles and our roles. They are not connected in any way, shape or form. The names are following a theme of names you could find in a small village of this era, with some humor thrown in the mix.

Lady Elizabeth Wrote:
I re-read my role-PM and the only other piece of information is that I was given a last name. Do you think this matters at all guys?

Yes, it most definitely matters. If it didn't, it would have been included in your profile name. There has to be a reason why it is hidden.

Care to elaborate, dear Muriel?

Our profile names, and the secret last names, are two different things. You are confusing them as one.

I hope you guys are right on the Friar. I would rather see Muriel go today. Just too much exaggeration from her today, she doesn't feel right. And lashing out at people who accuse her like a cornered animal.

Yeah, paranoid gun-owner is a lot better than the friar being the vig, but still a villager is gone

GG Friar

I assure you, Mr. Know-Nothing, that I am a villager. It says so right in my role PM.

I do get so excited when the first wolf is caught:

Also:

Now to my vote. Rob, you are very eager to attack someone only a few hours into the game. While I find it hard to believe that a wolf would rather go on an attack like that than stay low, I find it even harder to believe that a villager would be so convinced of someone's guiltiness right off the bat that they would go on such an attack. Especially when I know that the person you are attacking is a villager, and one of the few contributors so far.

Eh? Buddies?

I don't see it likely that Sarah would throw dirt on a teammate, so I think Widow Edith has a fair point about pursuing other targets and giving Muriel space to prove herself.

I like your reason to vote Kate, Jon, but I think it is better to kick at some of our other lurkers. Scarlet John contributed very little on Day 1, and limited his discourse to but Muriel and the Friar. I think he should be given a platform to speak some more of his mind.
[/color]

Blast these colors. Scarlet John

And x-post with a few it seems.

Like any real doctor i seem to be incompetent around computers...

Scarlet John

Third time's the charm!

John, if you can even give a little bit it would be of the utmost help. Nobody is asking you to pick a scum on the first try, but if you can post whatever comes to mind upon reading that will help us figure it out.

You voted for Muriel and Friar Andrew yesterday - do you still suspect Muriel today? Or do you suspect someone else more?

Upon reviewing him I find him mostly a null tell. I did find his initial reason for going after Muriel (that she was fishing for roles) somewhat contrived. But the rest reads pretty naturally to me.

Oh another minor thing I notice; the doctor suspects Friar Andrew early on, but when he's on the block, the doctor hopes "you guys" are right about him, saying he prefers to lynch Muriel. A bit odd that he wouldn't comment on what his own opinion on Andrew is now since he had stated an opinion earlier.

I'd like to hear why you suspect Dr. Saul, Jon, but I'm happy to let others weigh in first.

[Know-Nothing Jon]

Kate, in my book, that wasn't really a last minute run, it was just a consolidation of votes from everybody who didn't want to vote for Muriel but wanted to make their vote count. Perhaps your perception is colored by the fact that you weren't around at the time.

I will wait for more opinions on Saul before taking that any further.

Young Will until he answers why he was watching Rob and me.

I also agree that Scarlet John's call for a policy lynch is sudden and seems off. It reads a bit like an attempt to redefine the case against him. (Though to be fair, the accusations did revolve mostly around activity.)

[Widow Edith]

@Scarlet: If you are a wolf I would rather lynch you fair and square than have you mod-killed (gives more satisfaction) and if you are a villager I would really prefer you help the village as much as you can and not stomp off just because you got suspected. And if you happen to be neither-nor I would like you to continue to play on too. Don't pull a thestick on us.

As a more vocal wolf, I'm currently suspecting Doctor Saul. Any other opinions on him?

I first found his exchange with Muriel interesting. And thought that his backing off was a wolf-tell fearing a too violent fight with a villager. But on rereading his posts (thanks Bert) I realised that it was Muriel who first backed off. Saul only agreed to it and returned later with fervor once he thought himself tricked. I lean rather town here.

What's the case on Young Will?

In a nutshell

.. the content of his posts. Read through them there is just 1 post with a bit content. And that includes the aforementioned : "I watch 2 persons I have not mentioned before and give no reason whatever" snippet. He posts enough to not fall into the Lurker-range but his posts are content-less which speaks scum to me.

[Scarlet John]

Okay, I'll do what I can, and contrive to get myself mod killed on day 3 or 4 by not voting if the time situation doesn't improve.

Muriel seemed to be trying too hard to be "useful" at the start of day 1. Although her later posting was better there's too much revenge voting and I still find her suspicious. Not sure we can get much in the way of clues from the day 1 voting though. People agreeing with me that Andrew's posts were bad was a common and easy line to take. And obviously, I don't fault anyone for this.

Actually, looking at the late votes the one that stands out to me is Will's 306-307, the two posts together give the impression that he's not really invested in the outcome of the lynch, will try to review his overall posting later

Night kills are confusing because active players weren't killed. After thinking about it overnight Anne/Sarah deaths look like the actions of a vigilante or neutral 3rd party. As I don't really see why wolves would kill someone (Anne) who hadn't done much up until the nightpost. The "werewolf" flip on Sarah doesn't suggest that there would be 2 wolf factions. We lynched the paranoid player so it's not too likely that there was another random death source floating around. For now I'm assuming Tom was the wolf kill, and so maybe he was on to someone - I can't remember his suspects apart from Andrew, will review later for clues too. Oh hmm, she's strongly anti-Muriel during night posting as well, there's too many links in this chain for it to be strong evidence, but another reason to be wary of Muriel at this point.

Liz posting feels village regardless of the meta argument, which I still don't accept as valid in any way.

I'm not bothered about the vote on me but Saul's "I don't think Sarah would throw dirt on a teammate" is a bad point, especially since the dirt in question was a throwaway comment about buddies. Regarding saul, that flip from muriel to mary back to muriel (and now off Muriel again for previously mentioned bad reasoning) is sudden and feels odd. Asks the question whether he intended to lynch Mary and then turn around and blame it on Muriel later. Definitely an interaction that should be reviewed after one of them flips.

[Scarlet John]

Also btw I'm not being emotional, quite the opposite - I'm ok with dying because then I wouldn't have to find time to play this game properly.

[Bert The Bard]

I'll cut Scarlet John some slack. He didn't post much on day 1 but I liked what he did post. Scum could easily add some non-content to stand out less.

Short Richard's posts:

MJW Courage Lady Elizabeth

Bert the Bard, since I don't see what's scummy about MJW's post.

What makes you two think Lady Elizabeth is MJW?

Three seconds in and we're already metagaming the role PMs...

I also received a last name, but I don't think it matters.

But who cares. Why do you want to debate it?

Curiosity.

Expanding on this, it seems any last names are tied to our roles. We are all called by our first name, nick name, or both. Any last name received would be interchangeable, and they were received specifically in a role-PM. Last names might yet play a part in this game. They might be used by a role or multiple roles, or they could be part of other gameplay at some point. Whatever it is, there's no need to start guessing. Unless someone has more information, they are no help to us, and should be ignored.

I don't like the way Muriel states the obvious in this post either.

The 'last name = role?' connection didn't feel obvious to me. I'm willing to cut Muriel some slack, the post has a bit of a condescending attitude but it does its job as a warning.

Fat Rose's Post #58 feels like he's reading too far into absolutely nothing. 'This list of people who haven't voted is evidence of metagaming and therefore scumminess!' Though it could be an overactive villager...

Now to my vote. Rob, you are very eager to attack someone only a few hours into the game. While I find it hard to believe that a wolf would rather go on an attack like that than stay low, I find it even harder to believe that a villager would be so convinced of someone's guiltiness right off the bat that they would go on such an attack. Especially when I know that the person you are attacking is a villager, and one of the few contributors so far. It's also odd how you describe that my post had an aura of innocence, yet you take this as a reason to lynch me? What kind of screwed up logic is that, to lynch those who you feel are villagers? Yes, a wolf could play you so that you believe it to be a villager, but for gods sake man there's a thing called Occam's razor maybe you should look it up.

Overdefensive, Muriel?

First impression, I'm feeling conflicted on Muriel, the wine says that (s?)he's too confrontational and aggressive to be a wolf.

Please point to where I stated that it is scummy. Because I most certainly did not.

Apart from that, this is just a small part of the actual post and I'm kinda curious why you just focus on that small part instead of commenting on the other 9/10s of my post.

I don't get that. You agree that this whole metagaming isn't fun and not what this game should be about and than you post a list who hasn't posted yet, which is just another way of metagaming who is most likely in which timezone and therefore who is who. Doesn't really add up for me.

I thought that you pointing out a contradiction implied you thought they were scum. Oops. Didn't have a clue what you were saying in the rest of your post, you lost me with that much text.

I'm starting to believe that the case on Muriel is a huge misunderstanding, that Muriel's assertion that name-roles may or may not exist was taken by Saul to be that name-roles do exist. I'm willing to believe this:

Yes, I said they could be used by a role. That does not mean that every single power role has a last name, or that any power role has a last name, or that a role who does use the last names has a last name himself. All it says is that there might be a role or more out there who have information on how the gameplay mechanic works.

Sir Percival for his rambling?

I really don't like the "too angry" argument, here. As Gaspar said earlier it is easy to fake anger as wolf. Just tap into something that makes you angry. It is very easy here because dieing because of using the word "role" incorrectly is BS. Gaspar in ww6 couldn't tap into angry as nothing silly was happening besides people attacking him for be wolfish (because he was a wolf).

Short Richard's response to LE's post above:

You drink one cup, I drink the other.

Can you elaborate on your case on Sir Percival please?

It was more of a 'policy lynch the incoherent' thing. I don't read him as confrontational, but I can't get a read better than 'hates meta and talks strangely.'

I would also like to hear Sister Mary's response.

Perci is for me dubious because of his offensive style he uses towards everyone not a poor widow. It is an act and given past experience acting rather helps scum. The dialog between Perci and the friar is so weird that it gives me uneasy feelings. And it was IMO unique. Example Muriel and the Doctor had a discussion and came to the conclusion they are both villagers. Me and Will have a discussion and think each other rather scummy. But Perci and the Friar had no discussion at all. It went - A: you scum; P: FO; A: you village - . That's as unhelpful as it gets. And while it rather indicates the Friar it is possible that it was an act in case one of them gets caught

The afterforementioned conversation:

Sir Percival, for being more influential than me.

haha suck it fatty

Fair enough.

unvote

Strange that you read it as more than random first-day banter.

Looks like my laptop charger's dead

Made it just in time. Friar Andrew, rather lynch lower-content.

Foo!

Really came back just in time, helped grandmother with groceries.

Wow, that's a lot of waffling on Muriel:

First:
The 'last name = role?' connection didn't feel obvious to me. I'm willing to cut Muriel some slack, the post has a bit of a condescending attitude but it does its job as a warning.
In the same post (!):
Overdefensive, Muriel?
Then:
First impression, I'm feeling conflicted on Muriel, the wine says that (s?)he's too confrontational and aggressive to be a wolf.
Then:
I'm starting to believe that the case on Muriel is a huge misunderstanding, that Muriel's assertion that name-roles may or may not exist was taken by Saul to be that name-roles do exist.
(I don't know why but I get the feeling Short Richard knew what Muriel meant all along, and just now sees fit to point out the misunderstanding.)
Finally:
Made it just in time. Friar Andrew, rather lynch lower-content [than Muriel].

Also, as pointed out on day 1 by Widow Edith and Fat Rose, it's odd that Short Richard votes Percy when he uses "too angry" as a town tell on Muriel. Richard does retort that he does not view Percy as angry, but Percy did accuse town of throwing the game and called Short Richard "Tiny Dick".

Other general scum tells on Short Richard is the attempt to start off topic discussions (why do you think LL is MJW?) and the need to point out when he's online and offline, and rushing to get a vote in. Feels like scum striving for all the activity points he can get. At the same time, he dismissed Percy as "rambling" and said that he "didn't have a clue what you [Fat Rose] were saying in the rest of your post, you lost me with that much text." So he is maybe more interested in appearing active than in actually doing his job.

So tentatively, Short Richard.
---
TBH, this feels like a tenuous case though, so I'm interested in what others think.

[Muriel The Slow]

John you said you don't have the time or the energy or the will to play this game. You gave up. You heavily implied that you are a villager and basically just gave us a big fuck you in the form of "I ain't gonna do shit, deal with it". Giving up is the perfect cover: You don't have to make posts, you don't have to create content, you don't have to make sense. You even managed to make it so that you don't have to vote, by making non-voting your go-to mod-kill option and subsequently pushing it back as far as Day 4. But we didn't let you off the hook so easily, and now here you are, making a big post throwing around accusations. I thought you didn't have the time or the energy for that? Not only that, but this is horrible villager play; First, you announce that you gave up, which means wolves will never lynch you which would have been the best way to go if you are a villager who can't play anymore. Trying to make the villagers lynch you and being a martyr is nothing but super lazy villager play especially when it won't even help us catch a wolf. Then finally you come back and start making arguments even though you just admitted you don't have the time or the energy, but somehow you are suddenly reinvigorated and can participate like anyone else?

Scarlet John because we have to, no matter what alignment you really are.

[Agnes The Orphan]

Xposted with last 5-6, don't have time to react to them too know sorry.

The above is a perfect post for playing on emotions. There is no actual content here, it is just whining about having to play the game. And what happens? He already got several people telling him it's fine to just read the last 10 pages or heck, maybe nothing at all.

Actually I hadn't noticed this, especially the quick response and the minimal pressure (I will point out that I'm not saying he can get away with no content, merely suggesting ways he can contribute efficiently after watching others [jkaen last game] catching up).

So, he was questioned about whom he suspect because Agnes couldn't find any content that he provided and he gets away just by playing on the emotional side of the village, trying to appear innocent by offering to get policy lynched. That is the worst offer you can make to the village - apart from that I don't get why you realize that not a little bit earlier, as others were afaik on a waiting list to jump in if someone drops out.

But imo he did not expect to get policy lynched anyway. He just tried to play up on emotions to avoid getting lynched while still not having to provide anything. The same can be said about his "I'm so confused by all the flips", which is another way of calling on the care of others because he is just such a poor, little boy that is so easily confused.

I agree with this - remember that before he had only been mentioned (I think) twice before this, and I didn't even vote, meaning pressure was non-existant.
So, Scarlet John

Kate, in my book, that wasn't really a last minute run, it w consolidation of votes from everybody who didn't want to Muriel but wanted to make their vote count. Perhaps you is colored by the fact that you weren't around at the time.

I agree wholeheartedly with this - I and others weren't convinced by a Muriel lunch and decided that Friar Andrews was a good alternative.
uote='Bert The Bard' pid='397502' dateline='1374563932']

The only thing big thing that Sarah did was attack me aggressively and you cannot get much from that...

I didn't notice her doing that really.

Did you review her posts? It's the only thing she did on day 1. I'm kicking myself for not pursuing her harder for it.
[/quote]
I did review her posts, I just didn't notice her being very aggressive (especially compared to the rest of the field), just that she wasn't saying much - tbh it looked to me like she was just taking part in what was going on.

[Know-Nothing Jon]

Scarlet John because we have to, no matter what alignment you really are.

This is really pushing it. Do you really think so?

Bert, your case looks ok to me at first glance.