I swear I'll never write from my phoneal again! I can't write a prope post without any typos. Oh wait... I just did

Wow, that turned overnight. Biggs, looks like the hammer train you wanted is going. Now who's going to be brave enough to finish it?

3 votes for Norell, who claimed to have set the same honey pot Biggs did, though this time Biggs fell for it, 2 votes for Biggs, because he was so eager to lynch, 1 honey trap vote for Onidsen.

So really now, assuming we really want to lynch someone, the votes are against Biggs and Norell, as the two easiest kills. Norell is two to lynch, so if the scum wanted to hammer, then hypothetically they'd have done so by now. Granted, that'd make them out as scum, so we can assume at least one has already voted, either for Biggs or Norell, and the other is either voting the other, or waiting to hammer later on.

So. . . what do we do then? Folks? Time is a ticking, don't forget.

38 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

3 votes for Norell, who claimed to have set the same honey pot Biggs did, though this time Biggs fell for it, 2 votes for Biggs, because he was so eager to lynch, 1 honey trap vote for Onidsen.

So really now, assuming we really want to lynch someone, the votes are against Biggs and Norell, as the two easiest kills. Norell is two to lynch, so if the scum wanted to hammer, then hypothetically they'd have done so by now. Granted, that'd make them out as scum, so we can assume at least one has already voted, either for Biggs or Norell, and the other is either voting the other, or waiting to hammer later on.

So. . . what do we do then? Folks? Time is a ticking, don't forget.

I think Norell voted Onidsen and changed to Biggs.

10 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I think Norell voted Onidsen and changed to Biggs.

He did, you're right. I counted him twice.

So 3 for Norell, 2 for Biggs. Norell because he was against voting, Biggs because he was for it. Ironically, Norell has since voted. Voting for Biggs because he supported voting is a bit ironic, but Norell qualified his vote by saying he did to Biggs what Biggs tried to do with Truthiness, and Biggs fell for it.

As both are already on my suspicious list, I'm torn between them. If ever one seems more likely to die than the other, I'm stating it here, I'll change my vote. I suspect 'em both, so it doesn't matter too much to me which one dies first.

3 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

He did, you're right. I counted him twice.

So 3 for Norell, 2 for Biggs. Norell because he was against voting, Biggs because he was for it. Ironically, Norell has since voted. Voting for Biggs because he supported voting is a bit ironic, but Norell qualified his vote by saying he did to Biggs what Biggs tried to do with Truthiness, and Biggs fell for it.

As both are already on my suspicious list, I'm torn between them. If ever one seems more likely to die than the other, I'm stating it here, I'll change my vote. I suspect 'em both, so it doesn't matter too much to me which one dies first.

Yes. I am on the Biggs wagon since the beginning but I am worried about the erratic behaviour of Norell.

"Do you vote me? So I vote you! Do not get enough support? So I vote anyone else, likely whoever had a vote on him already."

And all this as you said: defending no lynching at the same time he votes people. Truthiness, at least, keeps himself quite coherent.

1 hour ago, Truthiness said:

Wow, that turned overnight. Biggs, looks like the hammer train you wanted is going. Now who's going to be brave enough to finish it?

Yup.

@Norell has explained himself. (Super weak sauce, but he did explain.)

@BiggsIRL might need a little time to wake up and explain.

I'm okay with one of these being our Day 1 lynches. We have about 8 hours. The longer it stays on them (especially Norell at 3 votes) the longer I suspect them as traitors.

3 hours ago, Norell said:

My reason behind my actions was to provoke a reaction. I do not like lyncng on day 1 because I always try to play safe and rather not kill a supportive role. This, combined with the rather pointless vote on Onidsen was to see who would react.

My guess was that the traitor will certainly suppor day 1 lynching and therefor be eager to jump on anyone suspicious enough. Well I did try to make myself rather suspicious to see who jumps at me first. That happened to be Biggs so he is my main suspect now.

He was very fast to jump on the day 1 lync train, relatively silent then when nobody joined him and jumped first at my bait.

## vote Biggas

I was killed in the last game because I made myself too suspicious early. Wouldn't it be kind of idiotic to do it again if I would be the traitor?

And finally in character: 'You don't want to kill someone with THESE, do you?' she said slowly caressing through her barely covered body and stellar bazonkas.

You, as "town", made yourself look scummy to see if "scum" would vote for your scummy self?

Even if I assume you made a trap, you baited it to catch TOWN (people that vote for scummy people) and are painting the people who sprung it as scum.

I'm not going to knock you to -1 quite yet, still some time left in the day and we don't want a Turbo, but you're going to need some better explanation than that.

So as far as I can tell, people are voting for me and think I'm suspicious for:

1) Advocating for a PRO TOWN move of voting Day 1. - TOWN

2) Being abrasive and asking questions to facilitate discussions. - TOWN

3) Having played enough games to be able to make the logical leap that 9 players = 2 scum. - NEUTRAL

Am I missing anything?

Well, between Ovi and Biggs there is enough for a hammer. Are you brave enough to be the last two votes?

1 minute ago, Truthiness said:

Well, between Ovi and Biggs there is enough for a hammer. Are you brave enough to be the last two votes?

We've got a little under 6 hours for more discussion... but yes?

That is a really odd statement Truthiness. Even if you are advocating for a no-vote Day 1.

Do you know something I don't about Norell's alignment?

14 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:

So as far as I can tell, people are voting for me and think I'm suspicious for:

1) Advocating for a PRO TOWN move of voting Day 1. - TOWN

2) Being abrasive and asking questions to facilitate discussions. - TOWN

3) Having played enough games to be able to make the logical leap that 9 players = 2 scum. - NEUTRAL

Am I missing anything?

I'm trying to decide which is weaker, this or @Norell 's defense.

19 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

I'm trying to decide which is weaker, this or @Norell 's defense.

Yeah, I mean, he has a good point, in that what he's doing can be considered pro town, but it can also be considered pro scum, by advocating a blind lynch, acting good now to become trustworthy, etc.

We'll have to see where @JJs Juggernaut stands when he checks in.

1 hour ago, BiggsIRL said:

You, as "town", made yourself look scummy to see if "scum" would vote for your scummy self?

Even if I assume you made a trap, you baited it to catch TOWN (people that vote for scummy people) and are painting the people who sprung it as scum.

I'm not going to knock you to -1 quite yet, still some time left in the day and we don't want a Turbo, but you're going to need some better explanation than that.

You yourself advocated that we must provoke people into action and I did just that. Not on a conventional way, but I becoming more sure that it worked.

The catch here is that, as you said, day 1 lynching helps the town. Therefor several (if not all) people will be pro lynch, including the scum but they have to be extra careful not to become too eager. Therefor they will await for someone to make a mistake and, if they are impatient enough, will jump on him. Just like you did on me.

51 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

Well, between Ovi and Biggs there is enough for a hammer. Are you brave enough to be the last two votes?

I already said I was not going to put him at h-1 so I kept my vote on Biggs.

If anyone is ready to be the hammer I could do. The only thing I am sure right now is that my vote, as worst, would be well-meaning. I cannot say the same for any other vote.

45 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Yeah, I mean, he has a good point, in that what he's doing can be considered pro town, but it can also be considered pro scum, by advocating a blind lynch, acting good now to become trustworthy, etc.

I'm not advocating. I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm trying to make it clear that the final votes of the hammer are going to earn my suspicion. If this is what the group wants, so be it. I definitely think it's a mistake, but I'm no expert in this game.

@JJs Juggernaut - What is your take on the Norell vote?

3 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:

Truthiness - Was that a scum-tell with the Norell voting?

Huh?

12 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

I'm not advocating. I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm trying to make it clear that the final votes of the hammer are going to earn my suspicion. If this is what the group wants, so be it. I definitely think it's a mistake, but I'm no expert in this game.

I was referring to Biggs.

5 minutes ago, BiggsIRL said:

Truthiness - Was that a scum-tell with the Norell voting?

How do you link specific comments?