Werewolf XXXIII: Animal Farm (SEE POST #4 FOR ALL UPDATES)

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by BrianD

It would be nice if Anxiety was around to tell us why he did this. He caused the tie in the same post where he said that you asking for a tie was suspicious.



This switch off of Bek was a little odd since it was before you were asking for a tie...

Anxiety said that he trusted hoops and, I believe, that is why he followed him.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Anxiety said that he trusted hoops and, I believe, that is why he followed him.

He sort of trusted Hoops, but not as much as he trusted you. Of course you voted for him, so he wasn't going to join your vote. Anxiety didn't follow Hoops' vote (Hoops to AE, Anxiety to Chubby), but he did join him in leaving Bek.

It just still seems odd that he called Chubby suspicious for wanting a tie, moved his vote to Chubby when it was too late to have any real point, and caused that tie. It probably doesn't tell us anything, but it was still odd.

[Alan T]

Chubby, i ran through the entire day yesterday, I don't see any post at all that makes me think Anxiety distrusted Hoops at all. He had references to many other people but not hoops other than good references.

I really am confused about your vote, and your reasoning actually seems false to me...

I'll post my findings in a sec.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

He sort of trusted Hoops, but not as much as he trusted you. Of course you voted for him, so he wasn't going to join your vote. Anxiety didn't follow Hoops' vote (Hoops to AE, Anxiety to Chubby), but he did join him in leaving Bek.

It just still seems odd that he called Chubby suspicious for wanting a tie, moved his vote to Chubby when it was too late to have any real point, and caused that tie. It probably doesn't tell us anything, but it was still odd.

Yeah, i am really confused about that whole sequence.. said Chubby was suspicious for wanting a tie, but then moved his vote to Chubby to force the tie he thought was suspicious.... I don't understand what happened there at all.

[Alan T]

I also find it weird that Chubby was all ready this morning, came out firing with a vote on hoops after Anxiety's dead for as far as I can tell no reason, when Chubby has been pretty quiet the rest of the game...

Something feels weird here to me.

[Chubby]

AlanT - hoops led the charge on bek
bek was good
hoops changed at the last minute when he thought he could while still seeing bek hang

it's pretty simple. I'm oh so surprised you and BrianD would be coming after me... I mean, I AM going after one of your baddie friends today.

[Alan T]

Here is what I found post wise from Anxiety yesterday. He actually commented on quite alot, so if no other reason, might have just been killed due to participation and lack of suspicion on him..

530 - Anxiety completely trusts swaggs, sorta trusts hoops
538 - comments to passacaglia for his looking harder at Anxiety after Lathum's death
557 - Agrees with hoops about pilkington might be dead.
573 - intrigued by my accusations of BrianD being bad and wants to hear more from others.
574 - odds about the chance of a bad guy night killing themselves.
622 - lathum was killed because he is a very good, understated veteran
625 - Doesn't like blade's metagaming (pulling together info from previous games for an elaborate plot)
657 - post directed at blade, I'm honestly not sure what it meant.
660 - Had been buttering Lathum up, but had actually started suspecting that he might have been evil.
661 - "Welcome to my ass" (to Passacaglia)
663 - Asking for people to lobby for where to put his vote.
672 - Agrees that its too early for Swaggs's plan. That they should only do it if they have found something good.
673 - Insists that they not use their PM power to send to swaggs tonight.
683 - Followed Hoops's reasoning to place a vote on Bek.
689 - Already announced that his trust list is hoops and swaggs
696 - Thinks voting for yourself is overdone and annoying.
713 - Asked for examples of why Bek thinks some of BrianD's posts have been fishy since day 2.
717 - comments on the late voting.
726 - Asks Bek to convince him to move his vote off of him, asks how BrianD is suspicious.
734 - Doesn't like Chubby's lets vote for a tie thing and moves his vote (actually ends up putting us into a tie)
737 - Says to chubby that he did move his vote off of Bek
739 - onto him (chubby)
740 - Says bek isnt dead yet 4-4 tie.
743 - At least tonight wasnt boring
746 - rereading over posts he missed
766 - joke post
768 - Supporting Hoops's pushing people through accusation by saying its something Blade does all the time
878 - agrees with Saldana that perhaps everyone should step away from WW and cool off a bit.
879 - Lets just all see what happens with the night actions and come back tommorrow


From these posts my take is that he felt swaggs and hoops were good, didn't like chubby, wasn't sure about BrianD, thought Passicaglia was voting wrong, but didn't retaliate, and had suspected Lathum.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Chubby

AlanT - hoops led the charge on bek
bek was good
hoops changed at the last minute when he thought he could while still seeing bek hang

it's pretty simple. I'm oh so surprised you and BrianD would be coming after me... I mean, I AM going after one of your baddie friends today.

Why are you attacking me? I'm just asking you for reasoning for your votes, because I do not understand it... and for whatever its worth, I already said that I don't trust BrianD, so don't group me with him.

You just gave a reason that seems false to me, and I'm trying to figure out why.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I also find it weird that Chubby was all ready this morning, came out firing with a vote on hoops after Anxiety's dead for as far as I can tell no reason, when Chubby has been pretty quiet the rest of the game...

Something feels weird here to me.

Chubby was pretty well set on the belief that Hoops was bad last night. I'm a little surprised he went for Hoops rather than me (since he seemed set on me being bad too), but I won't complain. I really have no clue what is going on, but I do get the feeling that Chubby is on the good side. He seems a little zealous, but I believe that he believes everything he is saying.

[Chubby]

As for the messages on the dead bodies:

Night one and three kills were revolutionaries' kills
Night two was Pilkington's kill.

I don't know why there wasn't two kills on night two but it's clear to me (by reading the rules) that is why there were messages on nights 1 and 3 and not on 2.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Chubby was pretty well set on the belief that Hoops was bad last night. I'm a little surprised he went for Hoops rather than me (since he seemed set on me being bad too), but I won't complain. I really have no clue what is going on, but I do get the feeling that Chubby is on the good side. He seems a little zealous, but I believe that he believes everything he is saying.

Yeah, I don't get the feeling Chubby is bad here.. I honestly don't understand his reasoning is all.. thats all

Coming in this morning before night actions, I had my mind set on either voting Blade or you (BrianD) today. I mainly was just holding off to see if we found anything interesting out last night.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Yeah, I don't get the feeling Chubby is bad here.. I honestly don't understand his reasoning is all.. thats all

Coming in this morning before night actions, I had my mind set on either voting Blade or you (BrianD) today. I mainly was just holding off to see if we found anything interesting out last night.

If I am bad, what would be my motivation for starting the vote for Bullet? Beyond that, what would be my motivation for not trying to break the tie at the end? That vote stayed tied until a few minutes before the deadline. Wouldn't it have made more sense for me to claim that a tie doesn't help us and move away from Bullet?

[Chubby]

as for why I have to come out gungho this morning: I have to work tonight 1pm-1030pm.

[hoopsguy]

Guys, I think we lost our seer last night with Anxiety.

When someone comes out on Day 2 and says there is no way that I'm bad - and I know that I'm not bad - I think they are either seer or wolf. No one else really has a vested interest in making that definitive a statement. I remained trusted by Anxiety on Day 3, although he did note that I was less trusted than Swaggs.

I played risk/reward with my support of Anxiety because I didn't want to take a chance of losing a person I thought was the seer although I was worried I was lining up with a wolf.

Chubby, you are on the wrong path here. I don't know if you are just mistaken or have bad intentions for the Farm, but if you continue to make this a you-versus-me scenario it is not going to go well for you later in the game if/when I am lynched.

[RealDeal]

I will use this as my placeholder vote again today until we maybe get something better to work with:

vote Dodgerchick

Nobody in this game has gotten less scrutiny than her. I actually agree with her that simply being quiet isn't really a good reason to think someone is a wolf, but the fact that she has no cast three meaningless votes in a row, all of which after it was clear that there were clear candidates, is a bit strange to me.

My vote will probably change, but at least this will shine a spotlight on DC for a little while.

[hoopsguy]

Also, on the Night kills, why would the Revolutionaries skip a kill on Night 2? There was no reason for them to do this - there was no other action they could take that would provide value for them. All it does is slow down the march to even numbers in the game. They know who all the Revolutionaries are and the Sympathizer. The only person they could inadvertantly kill is Pilkington.

I maintain that with single kills each of the last two nights we got Pilkington. I have no way to know this for sure, but the context of the game certainly leads me to believe this quite strongly. Similarly, I believe that Bulletsponge was Pilkington - with no rules changes I again believe we hit a bad guy on that lynch. That was Day 2, before Pilkington had an opportunity to make any kills.

[Chubby]

hoops - you weren't on his 100% trusted list so don't pretend that you were.

You led the charge on the lynch of a good guy yesterday. Amazingly, the people that I think are in cahoots with you are ignoring that fact.

I'm really not expecting the people currently posting to agree with me since it hurts their evil cause. I fully expect them to come after me when I leave for work.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Also, on the Night kills, why would the Revolutionaries skip a kill on Night 2? There was no reason for them to do this - there was no other action they could take that would provide value for them. All it does is slow down the march to even numbers in the game. They know who all the Revolutionaries are and the Sympathizer. The only person they could inadvertantly kill is Pilkington.

I maintain that with single kills each of the last two nights we got Pilkington. I have no way to know this for sure, but the context of the game certainly leads me to believe this quite strongly. Similarly, I believe that Bulletsponge was Pilkington - with no rules changes I again believe we hit a bad guy on that lynch. That was Day 2, before Pilkington had an opportunity to make any kills.

This further shows why you are evil.

Pilkington can not make a kill every night, only on certain nights.


Night two was his first kill attempt. Amazing how there was no message on the body that night but there was the other two nights.

I certainly don't believe Pilkington to be dead tho I'm sure the revolutionaries would love for us to think that.

Either the Revs hit the bodyguard on night two or they simply didn't make a kill attempt in order to try and convince us that Pilkington is dead... which is exactly what you are suggesting.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

hoops - you weren't on his 100% trusted list so don't pretend that you were.

You led the charge on the lynch of a good guy yesterday. Amazingly, the people that I think are in cahoots with you are ignoring that fact.

I'm really not expecting the people currently posting to agree with me since it hurts their evil cause. I fully expect them to come after me when I leave for work.

I'll tell you right now that I will defend you if anyone does attack you. I fully understand why you distrust me. I know that your conclusion is wrong, but your logic seems decent. I keep hoping that I'll be cleared when the big reveals start happening, but I won't attack you just because you are wrong about me. I just don't know how to gain your trust other than by dying.

[hoopsguy]

Post #295:
Night 1 results posted by Path

Post #299 by Anxiety:

Anxiety's COT:

Trusted: hoopsguy, Swaggs

Neutral: Everybody else


Swaggs is obviously a powerless Duke, making him a good guy. No way would hoops put himself out ther like he did yesterday and still be evil. I still don't have a reading an anyone else.


-Anxiety

[Chubby]

BrianD - which is why I'm going after hoops today. He is the one i am most sure about being evil so he's the target today.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

hoops - you weren't on his 100% trusted list so don't pretend that you were.

I agree that Hoops is trying to make more out of the Anxiety statement than is really there.

You led the charge on the lynch of a good guy yesterday. Amazingly, the people that I think are in cahoots with you are ignoring that fact.

Was there any way to know Bek was good? I guess I don't see this as much different than any other railroad jobs that were done earlier in the game. If the rule change idea is accurate, we have more information now which we didn't have before the Bek kill.

[hoopsguy]

Chubby, so your assumption is that the bodyguard got a block on Night 2? And that all of my efforts at explanation here are subterfuge designed to help Pilkington escape notice as he kills? Just checking ...

[hoopsguy]

Also, if you are most sure about me being evil then I really question the rest of your list as you are flat wrong on me.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

If I am bad, what would be my motivation for starting the vote for Bullet? Beyond that, what would be my motivation for not trying to break the tie at the end? That vote stayed tied until a few minutes before the deadline. Wouldn't it have made more sense for me to claim that a tie doesn't help us and move away from Bullet?

I already said in a previous day what I thought you were up to on bullet. I actually used that day a strategy I watched Blade do before to someone one game when he snagged a bad person. I threw out an idea that made sense to me and see who jumped on it. You did.

I was the one who posted the reasons I thought Bullet had been acting funny and was pretty suspicious to me. You suddenly do the oh yea, sounds good thing and threw a vote on before its piling on. Now it seems luckily for us that i was right on my suspicions about Bullet, but you gain no trust from me on your actions that day. It actually seemed very sneaky to me.

As for not moving away from the tie, I guess I don't have a great answer for that other than the question I asked yesterday that no one answered.. my belief is that you might just not have known Pilkington was bad and only know who your other revolutionaries are. Its what I feel is likely the case.

Right now if i had to guess, you and Blade are the revolutionaries and I don't know who is Squealer, but its likely someone laying low who at some point is going to come out with a false seer claim, when they find the real seer. Pointing a finger at someone saying they are bad (when its really the seer).

[hoopsguy]

Brian, I hope I am making a mistake in thinking that Anxiety is the seer. I have no way of knowing this but I do have a sense of how different players work with/against me in werewolf games here.

Anxiety attacked Alan for supporting Swaggs' idea about PM'ing the kill views. He did not mention me during this rant, despite the fact that I was with Alan in endorsing this plan. All through the last two days I had the strong impression that Anxiety was trying to align himself with me, although I could not be sure of his motivation in doing so.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

BrianD - which is why I'm going after hoops today. He is the one i am most sure about being evil so he's the target today.

Can I assume that no matter what we find out about Hoops (if he is lynched), you'll be coming after me tomorrow?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Guys, I think we lost our seer last night with Anxiety.

When someone comes out on Day 2 and says there is no way that I'm bad - and I know that I'm not bad - I think they are either seer or wolf. No one else really has a vested interest in making that definitive a statement. I remained trusted by Anxiety on Day 3, although he did note that I was less trusted than Swaggs.

I played risk/reward with my support of Anxiety because I didn't want to take a chance of losing a person I thought was the seer although I was worried I was lining up with a wolf.

Chubby, you are on the wrong path here. I don't know if you are just mistaken or have bad intentions for the Farm, but if you continue to make this a you-versus-me scenario it is not going to go well for you later in the game if/when I am lynched.

I don't really think I believe this hoops (That Anxiety was the seer that is).

He was on the lynch block day 1, ended in a tie, and never once hinted as far as I could see that he had an important role...

I guess on day 1, it really would be death for the seer to admit that, but if you're the seer thats likely dead, you do anything you can to extend an extra day if possible just to get at least another read in.

I guess if Anxiety was the seer and had the tiebreak to start then I could see being comfortable in that position.. but I guess with the way he was going down (as well as how Bek went down last night), just doesn't speak of a seer role to me.

[Chubby]

post 530

Anxiety's COT:

Completly Trusted: Swaggs

Sorta Trusted: hoopsguy

Everybody Else: Neutral


Gee hoops, why didn't you quote this post? Somehow you dropped on Anxiety's list from trusted to sorta trusted. Wonder why that was... why did you go back to a post in the 200s? Oh, that one put you in the best light!

BrianD - No. My list isn't set in stone and neither is the order that the people are in I didn't even have a list before the the tie last night and the subsequent conversation.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

As for not moving away from the tie, I guess I don't have a great answer for that other than the question I asked yesterday that no one answered.. my belief is that you might just not have known Pilkington was bad and only know who your other revolutionaries are. Its what I feel is likely the case.

So you think I jumped first on what I thought would be a bandwagon to avoid suspicion and just got unlucky in unknowingly killing Pilkington? That is actually a pretty solid theory. There is nothing there I can directly refute.

Just for clarity, can you re-ask the question from yesterday that nobody answered? I don't remember what it was.

[Abe Sargent]

My ego loves being the subject of conversation.


Plus I can Edit my posts and you guys can't lynch me. Nyah!

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Chubby, so your assumption is that the bodyguard got a block on Night 2? And that all of my efforts at explanation here are subterfuge designed to help Pilkington escape notice as he kills? Just checking ...

I already stated the two possible scenarios in my mind for why there was only one night 2 kill.

1) bodyguard block
2) no attack by the Revs (knowing Pilkington would kill) to try and convince us that Pilkington was dead.

[hoopsguy]

Responding to Chubby's question:

post 530

Anxiety's COT:

Completly Trusted: Swaggs

Sorta Trusted: hoopsguy

Everybody Else: Neutral


Gee hoops, why didn't you quote this post? Somehow you dropped on Anxiety's list from trusted to sorta trusted. Wonder why that was... why did you go back to a post in the 200s? Oh, that one put you in the best light!

Because I already addressed it in Post #914?

When someone comes out on Day 2 and says there is no way that I'm bad - and I know that I'm not bad - I think they are either seer or wolf. No one else really has a vested interest in making that definitive a statement. I remained trusted by Anxiety on Day 3, although he did note that I was less trusted than Swaggs.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I agree that Hoops is trying to make more out of the Anxiety statement than is really there.



Was there any way to know Bek was good? I guess I don't see this as much different than any other railroad jobs that were done earlier in the game. If the rule change idea is accurate, we have more information now which we didn't have before the Bek kill.

Us good guys had no way to know if Bek was good. The bad guys did (he wasn't in there group).

As I'v said, I wanted a tie to get information. It very well could have been a tie between two good animals, however, Bek WAS good and hoops did lead the charge before making his suspicious switch.

[hoopsguy]

So, to continue with your "no kill by Revs Night 2" theory - should we expect them to skip their kill on Night 5 as well? So we will never see two kills in a night?

Remember, their goal is to get to a 1:1 ratio to win the game. And they have no other option to take in the evening. So if they skip a night they are extending the game.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

So you think I jumped first on what I thought would be a bandwagon to avoid suspicion and just got unlucky in unknowingly killing Pilkington? That is actually a pretty solid theory. There is nothing there I can directly refute.

Just for clarity, can you re-ask the question from yesterday that nobody answered? I don't remember what it was.

I asked questions about what we thought we knew as far as the bad guys knowing each other. I put up that I felt pilkington knew one of the bad guys, but I wasn't sure or not if they knew him.. If so what it might mean if Bullet actually was pilkington (ie: people voting for him or not voting for him doesn't buy any trust, however if we could see if bullet purposely avoided or didnt avoid someone in a way we might think he was signaling them that he knew their role and was on his side).

No one responded so I gave up on trying to go down that path and just voted you instead. I thought it might be worthwhile to try to investigate more, but no one wanted to.

[Chubby]

hoops - so quote the most recent post, why quote the one that puts you in the best possible light even if it's old and outdated? Oh yeah, you're bad and are trying to save yourself.

[hoopsguy]

No, I quoted it because BrianD suggested I was making more out of Anxiety's actions. So I tried to support my argument.

Chubby, this is getting pointless really quickly. You've made your decision for today. So be it. I have to make mine on whether you are just wrong or evil.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Us good guys had no way to know if Bek was good. The bad guys did (he wasn't in there group).

As I'v said, I wanted a tie to get information. It very well could have been a tie between two good animals, however, Bek WAS good and hoops did lead the charge before making his suspicious switch.

Chubby, out of curiosity why do we want a tie, what information do we get?

If its a tie between a good guy and a bad guy, and a bad guy has the tiebreaker, we likely won't ever know who had it ..

By creating a tie you possibly give a bad guy who might have the tiebreaker the upper hand in making the decision knowing full well if one of the two in the tie are on their side or not.

A good person with the tiebreaker has no further information to work on, so its less likely they will guess correctly.

To me it seems in this game that only people who want a tie are bad people.. since we don't learn anything from them and it increases their odds of avoiding a lynch.

Am I wrong?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

So, to continue with your "no kill by Revs Night 2" theory - should we expect them to skip their kill on Night 5 as well? So we will never see two kills in a night?

Remember, their goal is to get to a 1:1 ratio to win the game. And they have no other option to take in the evening. So if they skip a night they are extending the game.

I don't know, you tell me.

I have never stated that I only suspect they skipped their kill chance but feel free to continue to try and twist my words as it only makes you look worse.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I asked questions about what we thought we knew as far as the bad guys knowing each other. I put up that I felt pilkington knew one of the bad guys, but I wasn't sure or not if they knew him.. If so what it might mean if Bullet actually was pilkington (ie: people voting for him or not voting for him doesn't buy any trust, however if we could see if bullet purposely avoided or didnt avoid someone in a way we might think he was signaling them that he knew their role and was on his side).

No one responded so I gave up on trying to go down that path and just voted you instead. I thought it might be worthwhile to try to investigate more, but no one wanted to.

Is that something you are still interested in investigating, or would you rather go down that road with anyone but me? I haven't looked over the rules that carefully to decide how much each of the bad guys knows about each other, but I'm willing to take a look. If you have already made up your mind about me and would view that as only trying to save myself, I'll let you go down that road with someone you trust and not get in the way.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Chubby, out of curiosity why do we want a tie, what information do we get?

If its a tie between a good guy and a bad guy, and a bad guy has the tiebreaker, we likely won't ever know who had it ..

By creating a tie you possibly give a bad guy who might have the tiebreaker the upper hand in making the decision knowing full well if one of the two in the tie are on their side or not.

A good person with the tiebreaker has no further information to work on, so its less likely they will guess correctly.

To me it seems in this game that only people who want a tie are bad people.. since we don't learn anything from them and it increases their odds of avoiding a lynch.

Am I wrong?

Yup, you're wrong.

It was stated by yesterday's tiebreaker that their vote simply counted twice and they weren't given the chance to pick.

I've gotten a ton of info out of yesterday's tie and I'm good. I have 4 people now on in my CoDT.

[hoopsguy]

Revolutionaries know each other and can PM. They know the Sympathizer but cannot communicate with him.

Pilkington knows one Revolutionary.

Squealer doesn't know anyone.

Those are how I understand the rules, based on the rules post and questions I have asked throughout the game.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Is that something you are still interested in investigating, or would you rather go down that road with anyone but me? I haven't looked over the rules that carefully to decide how much each of the bad guys knows about each other, but I'm willing to take a look. If you have already made up your mind about me and would view that as only trying to save myself, I'll let you go down that road with someone you trust and not get in the way.

I haven't made my mind up about anyone. Even Blade yet. When I suspect someone, them doing more shady things, or wolfish things cause me to suspect them more and more. Unfortunatly my role does not allow me the privledge of knowing anything about anyone.. so I could be wrong about either of you.

Based on wolfish behavior, my feeling is Blade and you are the top of the list. I havent however made my mind up yet on anyone.

I'm also curious about this whole Chubby vs Hoops thing and trying to figure out if one is a wolf or both just misguided at each other.

I also am wondering how much ardent, dodger and Goldeneagle were doing under the radar and how much are actually just honeslty missing votes for good reasons (or in dodgerchick's case just not feeling people in the running were good votes and threw away her votes each day)

[hoopsguy]

Path, any word on either Blade or AE? Because we are going to be playing short-handed if they are not part of the game. Plus they could hold critical roles that we will need later in the game.

[hoopsguy]

Also, I'm interested in seeing if Swaggs learned anything last night. He could help us establish some clarity if he has PMs today with one of the dead-seers.

[Alan T]

Chubby, you're wrong. If they aren't involved in the tiebreak, they submit their vote

Originally Posted by path12

Let me try to clarify this. For the person who has the tiebreak power:

If they have voted for one of the people who are tied, their vote will count double and break the tie.

If they have voted for someone who is not in the tie, they must PM me with their choice of the players who are deadlocked, and that person will be lynched.

Also, and I know I keep going back and forth on this, I will ask for no reveal of the tiebreak power while the person has it. If they choose to reveal they had the tiebreak after they use it I'm fine with that.

Hopefully this clears it up and can be the final word on the tiebreak.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I just finished catching up and would like to make a few comments.

I don't think the changing rules means all that much. In the book the animals kicked out the humans and started running things themselves. The more power they gained, the more they started acting like humans. They even changed their core rules to allow themselves the same vices the humans had. I think the rule changes are part of the scenery, but I'll be willing to take another look if we can really tie them to something.

I was the first to vote for Bek. My reasons were mostly because he was quiet and because he had voted for me. I know he wasn't the most quiet, but I picked fairly randomly from the quiet ones. I didn't mean to start a bandwagon, but it might be worthwhile to see who jumped on it.

I had the tie-breaker today. I didn't get a chance to pick Bek for the tie-breaker kill, my earlier vote counted for 2. Had I been online at vote time, I'm not sure what I would have done. I mention my tie-breaker status just so that we can have another true fact floating around to use for analysis.

try again Alan T tho I do think we have an evil person tiebreaking last night. Something we didn't know then but I do know now.

[hoopsguy]

Chubby, what did BrianD have to gain in revealing he had the tie-break last night. Why wouldn't he just keep quiet about this, as the person who held the Day 1 tie-break did?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I'm also curious about this whole Chubby vs Hoops thing and trying to figure out if one is a wolf or both just misguided at each other.

I don't know what to say about Hoops, but I don't think Chubby is a wolf. His logic is very elaborate and quite consistent. I don't think he would go to that much trouble in a misdirection ploy. What I don't know is if his logic is correct. I know it was wrong in identifying me, but I can't know about the other identifications yet. Hoops is a bit suspicious by claiming a dead guy was the seer and trusted him. I just don't know if he is suspicious enough.