Author Mafia - Game Over!

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Truly thou baffle my mind Madame Austen. Thy "acumen" - if thou may label it as such - is astoundingly weak and abstruse. So surely, by thy logic, all God must do to gain our trust is beguile us by simply naming his partners in crime? Thou truly dumbfound me.

Vote: Madame Austen

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Truly thou baffle my mind Madame Austen. Thy "acumen" - if thou may label it as such - is astoundingly weak and abstruse. So surely, by thy logic, all God must do to gain our trust is beguile us by simply naming his partners in crime? Thou truly dumbfound me.

Your harsh words have struck me quite deeply; I am quite injured, and though you are quite sure to make your apologies, and though I am quite sure you shall mean them, they can not help soothe the wound I am struck with. Let us speak no more on the matter for I need a few minutes to regain my strength.

Ah, my dear, surely thou are stronger than thou reveal to the eyes of mortals? For one cannot simply have a soft heart and live upon this godforsaken earth. Surely thou beguile others in hopes fulfilling thy own devious motives, no, my dear? Those mortals who do not choose the path of repentance early live harsh lives, and die a gruesome death indeed; thou cannot begin to fathom. Those who are constantly dreaming dreams no mortal ever dares to dream - those are the ones that thou should heed. And my dear, I am such a one.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Kid didn't have a whole lot to go on. Decided to just vote the person he'd have the most trouble understanding. Not really fair, but better than nothin.[/i]

Vote: Gertrude Stein

Tis surely the way of madness for a Lady to speak like Madame Stein doth, I must agree, friend. Thou do tempt me indeed, for mortal men are tempted with such things.

Vote: Madame Stein

Speak, woman, and let mortals understand thee. Thou tempt me to quaff nepenthe for my loss indeed. For simply living in this world is a torture; one like myself surely cannot endure what the insane say. Thy only remedy is to let mortals understand, and thy chooses to torture the poor souls? What a cruel world we live in indeed!

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Bigger Guy taps through his phone into the Author Mafia game. He Votes Lemony Snicket for being absolutely moronic and thinking that RVS is some sort of ritualistic betterment for humanity when it is literally just a load of shit created to perpetuate a game forward that can be perpetuated by common sense and motivation.

Your post, a word here which means a written statement on an online message board and not a sturdy piece of wood used as support, makes as little sense as the costumes in Count Olaf's very first play, which made very little sense indeed. Is it not common sense to vote in the beginning of a game of mafia? Are you not stifling the game's progress by not voting?

I urge my fellow authors to vote D.M in great haste. I believe he is Mr. Olaf in disguise which would make him a great villain.

Thou art truly a wicked man! Thy accusation extend simply to the realm of "not voting", as is a mandatory stage of some sorts?

"Be those words our sign of parting, man or fiend!" I shrieked, upstarting--
"Get thee back into the darkness and the netherworld below!
Leave no black word as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave our innocence unbroken! -- quit the forged self thou show!
Take thy sword from out our hearts, and take the form that thou show!"
Quoth the man simply, "No."

Vote: Lemony Snicket

I simply raged. Thou art wicked indeed!

I jest no longer, friends. This man is a danger to us all. A man who attempts to sow the seeds of chaos early on - for chaos is never satiated -, simply over nothing, is truly no man at all, but some type of fiend sent to us from the world below. Make haste now, friends. For the evildoers work well when they are given time.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

The game begins without my knowing head
To start two pages I have read. Oh wow.
This talk that hast sprung up makes me know not
Who scum could be. Therfore, I guess I'll start

Vote: Dr. Seuss

A weak and pitiful attempt at, what is typically named here, "RVS". Shame shall consume thee. I feel it is best to confine to thee that thou hath earned a strike near thy name on my list. My eyes will not stray far from thee indeed. Alas, though, thou would've garnered my vote had it not been for one Lemony Snicket, whom wrongdoings I see it best to focus upon at this hour, and whom I am awaiting a response. Sir Snicket, I believe I am addressing thee, no? Fear not those who write about death. Indeed, no! Fear those who cause death. Tell me, sir, art thou such a man?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

In this particular setting, inaction is the sign of a criminal. This is in contrast to other settings, such as a war-stricken battlefield, where inaction will lead to a criminal being shot in the head. In a deep, murky sea of those who were acting, Mamet stood out as one who did nothing. It was an oddity, which means something strange and worth a vote.

And do thou, sir, believe that a criminal would attempt to "stand out" amidst a crowd, or that they would have better luck attempting to fade into the general public? In addition, I do not believe "oddity" merits a vote. No indeed. Truly, those who can think for themselves are usually innocent of any crime, whilst those endeavoring to appear "unodd", if you may term it as such, merit a closer look upon. Do thou believe differently?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

OOC: A way that I find helpful in lessening alt-slips is to change the board style for the alt. Ex. If you have the Silver skin on your main account, to put the Sepia on the alt.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

And do thou, sir, believe that a criminal would attempt to "stand out" amidst a crowd, or that they would have better luck attempting to fade into the general public? In addition, I do not believe "oddity" merits a vote. No indeed. Truly, those who can think for themselves are usually innocent of any crime, whilst those endeavoring to appear "unodd", if you may term it as such, merit a closer look upon. Do thou believe differently?

I'm afraid that when searching for these criminals in the early stages of our game, much like when first sweeping a crime scene, or when inspecting a house you bought from your suspicious aunt with a wooden leg, oddities are the best we can find. But I do agree, E.A.P, that those who blend in are as devious as those who stand out.

Thou surely contradict thyself? For how can a man believe that both standing out and blending in are both suspicious to the eyes? Truly, would not every gentleman and madame fit into one or the other category. Especially when thou are attempting to search for criminals early on.

Do you believe the Daily Bugle is devious?

My main concern with The Daily Bugle at this hour is not over it attempting to beguile us, rather it is that it seems to be more forging a summary rather than entrust us with it’s thoughts. However I will admit that it seems to be attempting to intertwine both aspects.

However, if thou point was to connect The Daily Bugle with seeming devious for attempting to fade into the general public, then I must confess, I see not where thou come from. Truly, it seems due to that theory, players like Christopher Marlowe, whom hath done nothing but come and declare that they have found nothing of suspicion and simply throw a random vote towards Dr Seuss, or James Joyce, who hath entered and paid no notice to the events that have since ensued, and simply threw a random vote himself, or Charlie Kaufman, who mayhaps hath attempted to beguile us by deviously concealing a, what people term around here, “bandwagon” vote.

Indeed, The Daily Bugle seemed to have keenly noticed this, and seemed to be endeavoring in attempting to bring together these authors for them to share their thoughts on the events that have transpired to us. Out of that alone, I both respect and admire the work that The Daily Bugle has been doing.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

The Daily Bugle – 6 (Marion Zimmer Bradley, Rucks, David Mamet, Lemony Snicket, Gertrude Stein, Jean-Baptiste Poquelin)

Surely, there must lie a scum*,
For all town cannot be this dumb,
For the wagon seemed to simply appear
Out of thin air not the least sincere.

[* Or more than one, of course.]

Madame Bradely

voted first, at RVS. A wagon, which seemingly appeared out of little and less, surfaced. Miss Bradely decided “I am still a tad suspicious of the Daily Bugle…. However, the haste [of the] wagon seems a bit suspicious too.” She, however, simply puts not effort into attempting to analyze the voters. Tell me,

Madame Bradely

, why do thou insist on camping a simple random vote on The Bugle when the wagon is springing faster than one can descend into madness? Surely, if thou no longer agree with thy original mark (for surely, no man – or woman – can simply know before hand of someone’s guilt – and surely, you confessed to the rest that thou hath suspicions of the wagon), why must thou insist on keeping thy mark on the Bugle? Thy rambling towards “God” does you no favors, either, Madame.

Rucks

, whilst seemingly half-crazed, does not draw my eye with his marking against The Paper. The man seems to demonstrate a certain genuineness in his talk. I note no oddity there.

Mister Mamet

evokes controversial reactions in my soul. On one hand, the bad mark against Bugle seems to be well thought out, and is indeed true. On the other hand, I have seen criminals use this tactic - sort of, say, “victimize” themselves - in hopes of being looked upon favorably. Alas, though, my mind shall hopefully be made up in the future. At this hour, however, I shall keep the man under my gaze.

Sir Snicket

is very troubling indeed. First, the man decides to raise up arms over Mr. Mamet simply over not “voting” in the beginning. I first simply considered it a jest, but the man seemed to continue on pushing the idea, and seemingly serious. After poking him, he simply states that anything “odd” is a sign of a criminal. Then, he takes it to the head to vote The Paper, for seemingly simply saying it’s thoughts, and for truly similar reason for why he marked Mamet on the first occasion - for Budgle was pointing out “oddity”, as a source of some authors not addressing the main topics of talk, whilst Snicket accused Mamet of also being “odd” and “standing out”. “Others are not acting as well, but this has been noted by the Daily Bugle.” This must truly be some type of hypocrisy, for Snicket had done nothing much previously than simply pointing out the oddity in Mamet, for not voting.

Madame Stein

, a truly mad woman, from what I can make out from her crazed talk, seems to be voting The Paper for simply summarizing the events, and not sharing opinions. Of course, I confess, I believe I am partly imagining what she is saying, and the other part imagining what she is meaning. But for the world to know,

Miss Stein

, please indulge us in why thou hath black-marked the papers.

Molière

, the sixth voter, does not say much - concerning The Papers of course -, and simply adds another vote without much mentioning the growing wagon, nor demonstrating genuineness in their talk. For that, I am wary of the man. But please, Monsieur, do not let me distract thy thoughts, nor interpret thy hard work in searching for scum. I will, however, be patiently awaiting thy thoughts on the matter of thy vote on The Papers. For thou did say “I sought specific posts to look through while I thought, On whether this [Bugle] player was proven scum or not.”. And then, thou decided to mark the person right away, for us to - if may dare say- “magically” know where thou coming from. Do please entertain our thoughts more on the matter of thy marked The Paper.

I hope to the angels that I am not mistaken about Bugle’s alignment, and that I somehow change the course of things to look favorably on The Paper, or simply dissuade others from continuing on the trail there are committed to at the present. However, my analysis still holds firm, for whether The Paper’s is guilty or not of committing the crime, a bad mark is a bad mark, and should be met with swift retribution. If Bugle at some point in the course of the future were to be confirmed as guilty of the crime which gathers us all here, then I would heavily suspect that those persons with the bad marks got, perhaps, frightened and paranoid early on, and, sensing that one of theirs might be in danger, decided to look unfavorably towards the poor soul - for even a criminal betrayed by his own provokes a certain kind of sadness - in hopes of leaving no connections to the man, and for others to look favorably upon them once The Paper were to be confirmed as an evildoer and spreader of evil.

For now, I will,

VOTE: Madame Bradely,

For while I find Mr. Snicket equally suspicious, I am displeased to find that others do not see what I do. However, a common goal should always be eradicated first, and then the players shall attempt to settle their differences.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Inkpens down on the farnientedesks!

Wagon this hiss bag'o'scum! Gums aflapping, pens ascraping, brain nomeaning.

No more page-antry, soldiers, war has bee gun.

VOTE: Rucks

Apologies, good sir, but Rucks is not a criminal. Truly, he is very much likely to be my highest read of innocence at this hour.

The fact thou art simply muttering over and over thy suspicion of Ruck, without much motivation, nor, I daresay, incentive, hath, in turn, surely convinced me that thou merit a closer look, and that thou should ever be gazed upon from the angels above, lest, thou, when this madness truly ends, when we resign from the torture that is this... this.. hell (for it is truly maddening to accuse a genius author like myself of murder!) truly turn out to be an evildoer, in which I will, simply, be not to blame, for I, I hear, I listen, I understand, listening to what the angels whisper, fathoming why they hide in the shadows and fear a great age of darkness, fear what this world is coming down to, what this world is boiling to, an age where crimes go unpunished by the local authorities, where murderers are allowed to walk freely amidst poor souls, a world where criminals hide cadaverous faces behind smiles, and where they can beguile the general public with charisma and charm.

If thou art not a criminal, and simply a good man who hath been accused of a heinous crime, thou art simply articulating thy thoughts ever so wrongly. If thou would not mind, it would please me, and I suspect, “a whole mess of folks”, as goodman Rucks would put it, if thou would express thy thoughts in a better design. Simply stating over and over that Rucks should be killed will not simply materialize a great shadow out of the heavens that swoops down upon us and engulfs Rucks in eternal flame; surely not?

His only post after his random vote is prepping to go on the Bugle wagon, yet he didn't enter it; that level of opportunistic forethought is most likely to come from scum.

This, Madame, makes my blood freeze and sends shivers down my spine. My eyes weep from the horrors that are put behind this thought, this logic, this... this... design. Thou art truly condemning a man for simply one post at this stage? This seems highly artificial and of want of looking “inventive” and “original”. And on the morrow, morrow, and morrow, thou would have achieved the same general purpose any sly man desires; that is to simply black-mark an innocent man, to keep thy organization of criminals safe and sound.

Williamson

also catches my eye as a potential criminal. Curt, short, and seemingly trying to fade in with the general public.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

P-Edit: If Seuss was to post more than one post, then I am sure I would find more than one post of his scummy.

Vote: Madame Austen

This needs major death.
Thou are truly a foolish one, dear sir. Foolish men inhabiting the body of a genius think they can control it? Begone from my sight!


This needs major death.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

P-Edit: If Seuss was to post more than one post, then I am sure I would find more than one post of his scummy.

Vote: Madame Austen

Thank you for pointing this out; I meant "were", of course - I apologise profusely. I noticed that you voted me, and longed to ask "why?", for I am sure that my mistake was not so hard upon you to warrant that, and I can see no other reason; was there one?

Ah, Madame. You do not see your own fault? You see, what thou state is a very clear indication that thy current thought on Dr. Seuss is artificial. You state that "I am sure I would find more than one post of his scummy".

This, methinks, makes it look like thou are looking for artificial reasons to throw suspects towards the public, in hopes of calling them "genuine thoughts". Some might call this confirmation bias. However, coming from the way thou said it, in the situation thou said it, it is a sure sign of a criminal.

Thou are simply digging the morgues for artificial participation in our discussion over the murder. This is proven by the fact that thou have made up thy mind

before

a man says their piece. Thou are condemning a man before he opens his mouth.

This can simply mean one of two things. Either thou art a criminal, and know Seuss is innocent of the crime. Or thou art a criminal, and know Seuss is a criminal with thee.

In any situation, a criminal is a criminal, and should be met with swift death.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

for Seuss has had no less time to talk than myself;

Doctor Seuss can be ill. He can be curt. He can be of the quiet folk.

Not giving a man a chance to speak so early is a sign of a criminal. What is more so, however, it saying such a thing as "I know beforehand that what the doctor will post will be scummy".

in context I merely claimed that he is not innocent just because he only has one post that shows his character

I fear you are forgetting why thou hath voted Seuss in the first place? I pray thou do not attempt to muddle this talk with "my memory is dim". Thou surely black-marked the good doctor for "thinking" he is a criminal. Now, thou art simply stating that he cannot be proven of innocence because of that one post.

I fear that the court these days are very clear about their rules. "A man is innocent until proven guilty." It appears thou art attempting to convey the opposite.

It is a response to your nonsense of an implication that a man with one post must be innocent; you mustn't ignore context.

I beg thy pardon? Attempting to edit my work will not pass by my notice so swiftly. My read on Seuss was a conditional on

thee

being a criminal. If thou art truly a murderer, then pushing on an innocent man, while also seemingly presenting a "well-spoken" argument, will not yield much backfire to thee. I, however, at a later point, resigned that logic, and decided there is still a chance that thou art attempting to gain early innocence-credit by pushing on a partner in crime. Alas, thou, the reason is not as important. My main concern at this hour is thou art scum, and need swift sentence to the gallows.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Seuss has still not offered much for us to work with, but Miss Austen assumes overmuch of his silence.

I assume nothing of his silence, and I am disappointed; for I had assumed someone who speaks such a lot of sense, as you have just did with regards to Miss Bradley would speak sense on all matters, and vote Poe; I suppose all men have their weaknesses, the most universal one being an inability to see them. What do you think of Poe?

This truly makes me laugh madame. You're suspecting me because I suspect thee, nay?

For the sake of the angels above, do not try to beguile more or another that thou have truly sensed me of being a criminal for attacking thee in an outlandish manner.

For I'll tell you what I tell all:

Take a hypothetical situation in which thou art any person not involved in the conversation with me. And let us pretend that I am having this conversation with another such person much like thyself.

Would thou, truly and honestly, have suspected me of doing what thou art accusing me now to some other? Or is it because I am accusing

thee

that thou feel obliged to attack me in turn?

It is truly the latter, nay? It's simple. Criminals feel obliged to defend themselves by attacking their accuser.

For the sake of getting an answer out of thee, which would it be, madame?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Note: Before continuing on, I wanted to say that this post took me several days and more hours than I can count to make. Please take the time to (a) read it, and (b) note that I got very mentally exhausted at some stages, and my logic may be very wrongly in some parts. I apologize ahead for any mistakes on my part, as I do not have the energy to re-read it, nor do I have the energy to revalue newer posts (which means this post is not fully up-to-date in some parts, but I did go back and add things from newer posts that I felt were too important to leave out).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poe wasn't feeling especially acute this night. Not the least bit sober, he lay on the couch of his small apartment in one of the less fortunate parts of Paris.

He remembers scant moments of the night. And indeed, for the last few nights, the ones where he had been forced to endure

that

. He shuddered to himself.

No man should endure this kind of torture

.

He had been keeping a log book with him. Fortunately, for if he was to attempt to re-tell the accounts of the previous nights thus far without his keen note-taking, it would have been horrid attempt at best, and an embarrassment at worst.

He took up the quill, and dipping it in the ink, he began:

The Murders during the Strange Assembly, Part I

Spoiler: Prologue

THE mental features discoursed of as the analytical, are, in themselves, but little susceptible of analysis. We appreciate them only in their effects. We know of them, among other things, that they are always to their possessor, when inordinately possessed, a source of the liveliest enjoyment. As the strong man exults in his physical ability, delighting in such exercises as call his muscles into action, so glories the analyst in that moral activity which disentangles. He derives pleasure from even the most trivial occupations bringing his talents into play. He is fond of enigmas, of conundrums, of hieroglyphics; exhibiting in his solutions of each a degree of acumen which appears to the ordinary apprehension preternatural. His results, brought about by the very soul and essence of method, have, in truth, the whole air of intuition. The faculty of re-solution is possibly much invigorated by mathematical study, and especially by that highest branch of it which, unjustly, and merely on account of its retrograde operations, has been called, as if par excellence, analysis. Yet to calculate is not in itself to analyze. A chess-player, for example, does the one without effort at the other. It follows that the game of chess, in its effects upon mental character, is greatly misunderstood. I am not now writing a treatise, but simply prefacing a somewhat peculiar narrative by observations very much at random; I will, therefore, take occasion to assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess. In this latter, where the pieces have different and bizarre motions, with various and variable values, what is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound. The attention is here called powerfully into play. If it flag for an instant, an oversight is committed, resulting in injury or defeat. The possible moves being not only manifold but involute, the chances of such oversights are multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten it is the more concentrative rather than the more acute player who conquers. In draughts, on the contrary, where the moves are unique and have but little variation, the probabilities of inadvertence are diminished, and the mere attention being left comparatively what advantages are obtained by either party are obtained by superior acumen. To be less abstract --Let us suppose a game of draughts where the pieces are reduced to four kings, and where, of course, no oversight is to be expected. It is obvious that here the victory can be decided (the players being at all equal) only by some recherche movement, the result of some strong exertion of the intellect. Deprived of ordinary resources, the analyst throws himself into the spirit of his opponent, identifies himself therewith, and not unfrequently sees thus, at a glance, the sole methods (sometimes indeed absurdly simple ones) by which he may seduce into error or hurry into miscalculation.

Whist has long been noted for its influence upon what is termed the calculating power; and men of the highest order of intellect have been known to take an apparently unaccountable delight in it, while eschewing chess as frivolous. Beyond doubt there is nothing of a similar nature so greatly tasking the faculty of analysis. The best chess-player in Christendom may be little more than the best player of chess; but proficiency in whist implies capacity for success in all these more important undertakings where mind struggles with mind. When I say proficiency, I mean that perfection in the game which includes a comprehension of all the sources whence legitimate advantage may be derived. These are not only manifold but multiform, and lie frequently among recesses of thought altogether inaccessible to the ordinary understanding. To observe attentively is to remember distinctly; and, so far, the concentrative chess-player will do very well at whist; while the rules of Hoyle (themselves based upon the mere mechanism of the game) are sufficiently and generally comprehensible. Thus to have a retentive memory, and to proceed by "the book," are points commonly regarded as the sum total of good playing. But it is in matters beyond the limits of mere rule that the skill of the analyst is evinced. He makes, in silence, a host of observations and inferences. So, perhaps, do his companions; and the difference in the extent of the information obtained, lies not so much in the validity of the inference as in the quality of the observation. The necessary knowledge is that of what to observe. Our player confines himself not at all; nor, because the game is the object, does he reject deductions from things external to the game. He examines the countenance of his partner, comparing it carefully with that of each of his opponents. He considers the mode of assorting the cards in each hand; often counting trump by trump, and honor by honor, through the glances bestowed by their holders upon each. He notes every variation of face as the play progresses, gathering a fund of thought from the differences in the expression of certainty, of surprise, of triumph, or chagrin. From the manner of gathering up a trick he judges whether the person taking it can make another in the suit. He recognizes what is played through feint, by the air with which it is thrown upon the table. A casual or inadvertent word; the accidental dropping or turning of a card, with the accompanying anxiety or carelessness in regard to its concealment; the counting of the tricks, with the order of their arrangement; embarrassment, hesitation, eagerness or trepidation --all afford, to his apparently intuitive perception, indications of the true state of affairs. The first two or three rounds having been played, he is in full possession of the contents of each hand, and thenceforward puts down his cards with as absolute a precision of purpose as if the rest of the party had turned outward the faces of their own.

The analytical power should not be confounded with simple ingenuity; for while the analyst is necessarily ingenious, the ingenious man often remarkably incapable of analysis. The constructive or combining power, by which ingenuity is usually manifested, and which the phrenologists (I believe erroneously) have assigned a separate organ, supposing it a primitive faculty, has been so frequently seen in those whose intellect bordered otherwise upon idiocy, as to have attracted general observation among writers on morals. Between ingenuity and the analytic ability there exists a difference far greater, indeed, than that between the fancy and the imagination, but of a character very strictly analogous. It will found, in fact, that the ingenious are always fanciful, and the truly imaginative never otherwise than analytic.

The narrative which follows will appear to the reader somewhat in the light of a commentary upon the propositions just advanced.

Residing in Paris during the spring and part of the summer of ----, I there became acquainted with a Monsieur ------. This young gentleman was of an excellent - indeed of an illustrious family, but, by a variety of untoward events, had been reduced to such jaded life that the energy of his character succumbed beneath it, and he ceased to bestir himself in the world, or to care for his grand fortunes. Shunning much of the world around him, he was thought of, in the beginning, by his neighbors and the public of Paris as a madman, sitting alone atop his grand estate in the richer parts of Paris. Opposed to what others thought, that perhaps the man had gone mad and now was attempting to channel the spirits of demons from the world below, this man spent his days and nights, simply, reading. Books, indeed, were his sole luxuries, and in Paris these are easily obtained.

Had the routine of his life at this place been known to the world, he might have, perhaps, been regarded as more of a madmen - although, perhaps, as madmen of a harmless nature. His seclusion, to himself, however, was perfect. He admitted no visitors. No persons entered his residence except for maids that came thrice a fortnight to tidy the place up. Indeed the locality of his retirement had been carefully kept a secret from his former associates; and it had been many years since this man had ceased to know or be known in Paris. He existed within himself alone.

It was a freak of fancy in him to be enamored of the Night for her own sake. The sable divinity would not herself dwell with him; but he could counterfeit her presence. At the first dawn of the morning he closed all the massy shutters of his old building; lighted a couple of tapers which, strongly perfumed, threw out only the ghastliest and feeblest of rays. By the aid of these he then busied his souls in dreams --reading, writing, or conversing madly with himself, until warned by the clock of the advent of the true Darkness. Then he sallied forth into the streets, roaming far and wide until a late hour, seeking, amid the wild lights and shadows of the populous city, that infinity of mental excitement which quiet observation can afford.

This man, over a length of time, became fascinated with books; became entangled in the enchantment that books held. He devised a plan. A simple plan really. "What of all the greatest authors gathered in one place, one grand assembly?". With in days, he had sent out the invitations, and had hired agents to pick up his guests from their front door.

A maddening idea some thought when they received the invitation, not the least which included myself. However, voluntarily or not, they gathered. I was amidst them, wide-eyed at all the luxury in the estate.

---

[account of the workshops, and the following murder of the good Terry Goodkind goes here]

Poe noted.

---

It has been some nights now since the death of Mister Goodkind. Many individuals have been examined in relation to this most extraordinary and frightful affair but nothing whatever has transpired to throw clear light upon it. I give below all the material I have noted thus far, and a stream of consciousness thinking to follow.

---

Spoiler: Marlow

Christopher Marlowe

, English dramatist, poet and translator, has thus far done little and less. The good Sir began by marking the dear good Doctor, in an attempted humorful manner. He seems not in the least enlightened to who might the criminal(s) in this murder might be, and he takes every opportunity from the onset to alert us of his ignorance. He gives a slight innocent read on The Papers, but does not follow it with a reason of any sorts, and leaves it at that. He then missed a great deal of discussion, and had to be woken up whilst asleep, only to question why the good Madame Austen has been garnering bad marks against her, and to promise that more shall come from him.

• Thoughts:

  It is yet too early for me to determine whether this man is an innocent or criminal, and indeed he has presented little and less. However, this absence and this little contribution to the current discussion makes me very suspicion of him. In addition, I do not like, in the least bit, how the man has kept his "jest" mark against the good Doctor, and I do not like how the man has been simply nitpicking hither and thither (see: simply stating a slight innocent read on The Papers, and simply questions the bad marks against Madame Austen). Alas, though, this information is very little to work from, and I do desire more.
  
  ADDITION: It comes to my attention that Marlow has spoken again. It is still very weak words, and simply is attempting to “pressure” The Papers, which is clearly having trouble with publication, nothing releated to scumminess.

Spoiler: Pynchon

Thomas Pynchon

, American novelist, has thus far been sharing his mind regularly. Mister Pynchon began by marking Mister Mamet for not marking anyone humorly during the first hours of the day. He then attacks the dear narrator of this account (one Monsieur Poe), for attacking the Snicket and Marlowe, the latter which he states, "Poe's eye is directed to it [Marlowe's empty thought sharing during the beginning] for no discernible reason." He then adds a bad mark against the dear Madame Bradely. He then goes at a length to address different points about Rucks, Madame Bradley, and Mr. Wallace.

• Thoughts:

  Whilst I am not in the least a bit hesitant to declare this now, and whilst I have been stabbed in the back not only once because of my sloppiness, I do declare that Mister Pynchon is almost very likely an innocent man. While I may not particularly strongly agree with some of the thoughts in his head, I can truly see the man attempting at looking for criminals, and having an air of honestly around him.

Spoiler: Shakespeare

William Shakespeare

, English poet and playwright, has been giving very rare tunnels into his mind hither and tither. The first time he speaks at the assembly, the man simply goes on and on about some incoherent poem which none but himself must've truly understood, nor did any a man - or woman - think it was relevant to the mystery at hand. The man, after some time later, decides to give another speech, this time, actually addressing some points that have been raised in the discussion. He simply condemns, in a slight way, my style of naming one and every ‘mad’, and states, “it is an easy thing”. The man goes on to agree with Mr. Wilde, and then follows it with a vote against Madame Bradley. He has since only gave a revision to his cast, in which he proclaimed Marlowe, ee cummings, and God as innocent. It is worthy to note that he does not give any explanations, nor does he give insight into his read on Mr. Wilde, whom he is supporting on the Bradley wagon.

• Thoughts:

  I am not really sure what to make out of the man thus far. He does not five me strong vibes of a criminal, yet what he has done thus far is little and less, and all of it can be deemed as pathetic contribution with no supporting evidence or thought. I am very interested in hearing more thoughts by the man, especially concerning his innocent reads (for example, how can he draw the fact that Marlow, ee, and God is innocent - especially when the former two, and especially the former of the two, have very little contribution) and his particular analysis of Mr. Wilde currently. I am also very interested to hear from the man more on current events. Do not let me down Sir Shakespeare. For now, I simply deem it insufficient information to puzzle out the truth behind this man.

Spoiler: Wallace

David Foster Wallace

, American novelist, short story writer, essayist, and professor, has, whilst not speaking much in terms of numbers, demonstrated strong content in his speeches. After starting with a jest vote, he then moved on to attack the good narrator of this exposé. He hath also gave comments on several other events in accordance, much which include the Madame Stein, the Madame Bradely, and hath also replied Mr. Pynchon on why he thinks Madame Bradely is an innocent (in which his analysis stems more from the way her wagon arose rather than a thing the woman that done).

• Thoughts:

  Ad libitum, he hath backed-up his accusation with strong content and thought. However, I am very cautious to call this man an innocent and be done with it at this hour. I ask, “Is there balm in Gilead?” Why this is rubbing me wrong is not a matter of which I can perfectly put into words. In the denouement, however, I still see this man turning out to be a criminal. This mostly stems, from, how I might say - lackluster - way of his push on me. Perhaps it is the language style that exist between us, but I just do not see the main passionately pushing for my head. However, this may just be a case of cognitive dissonance, and I am inclined to lean the man towards the side of innocence.

Spoiler: Joyce

James Joyce

, Irish novelist and poet, is most peculiar indeed. The man, apparently half-crazed, mumbles incoherent gibberish hither and thither. However, the man may not be as mad as he may seem upon a first glance. Amidst the mumbling, I noted that the man first threw a (?) jest vote on one Ellis. He hath then ever since called for the head of Rucks. Breaking up and slowly digesting his writing, methinks he suspects the man for being opportunistic. He also has a innocent read on Mr. Mamet, whom he says he first had a criminal read on upon first glance, but upon closer inspection has determined the man to be one of innocence. He then goes on to state (what I can make out) that he thinks the criminals must be hiding behind “smokescreens”, which I am assuming to mean such things as greater events that serve no better purpose that to distract the innocents from capturing the criminals that roam around them. After some time calling for the head of Rucks, he then goes on to suspect one Brian Jacques, and then declaring “One bullet kills Rucks and Jacques”. Lastly, he has black-marked one Ellis for using FoS, which he deems as criminal-associated.

• Thoughts:

  Upon a closer look, I was in awe at the amount of content that hath poured out of Sir Joyce. At a first glance, I had called the good Sir a murderer for suspecting one of my strongest proof that innocence still remains upon this forsaken world. However, it does seem that Sir Joyce is following a rather “genuine”, and whilst not always clear, it is still an understandable thought process. However, I do not much understand the horrid vibes towards Mr. Jacques. I would greatly appreciated it if the good sir would please expand on that, in addition to please enforcing us why Mr. Mamet is an innocent, in thy own thoughts. One thing that does, however, in great part, makes me stumble, and makes me very weary that this man might be of some danger to us all, is for his last black-mark against one Ellis. I do not understand it, and I do not understand the logic of dropping THREE strong criminal reads to go after a man whose only crime was implementing FoS in his speech. But the great concern arise from the fact that the good sir did not even address his other criminal reads, and why he thinks it is best to leave that endeavor and seek out a newer one. Or, simply put, he did not compare his new black-mark with his old one. For that, I am weary of the man for now, even for a tad bit.

Spoiler: Moliere

Jean-Baptiste Poquelin

, also known as Molière, French playwright and actor, has, sadly, only addressed this assembly but once. Speaking in French, the Monsieur attacks The Papers, saying such things as “Lorsque l'on regarde à travers ce texte, je pensais que je pouvais voir, mais Un idiot dont les écrits me remplit d'angoisse” (When looking through this text I thought I could but see An idiot whose writings filled me with agon). However, he does nothing to show why he thinks this. ‘Tis is it, and nothing more.

• Thoughts:

  This truly leaves a man very little to work with, and very little to formulate an opinion one way or the other of the man. I do not think it is too much to ask if the man would please share more delightful and humorful thoughts with us. However, looking at what we have (as I already addressed this previously in one of my speeches during a previous night - perhaps on a night when I was less drunk?), Molière was the sixth voter, and does not say much concerning The Papers, and simply adds another vote without much mentioning the growing wagon, nor demonstrating genuineness in his talk. For that, I am wary of the man. But please, Monsieur, I will repeat, do not let me distract thy thoughts, nor interrupt thy hard work in searching for criminals. I will, however, be patiently awaiting thy thoughts on the matter of thy vote on The Papers. For thou did say “I sought specific posts to look through while I thought, On whether this [Bugle] player was proven scum or not.”. And then, thou decided to mark the person right away, for us to - if may dare say- “magically” know where thou coming from. Do please entertain our thoughts more on the matter of thy marked The Paper, and on more current matters at hand.
  
  ADDITION: I do not like the latest talk by Monsieur Molière either. He is simply not giving a reason for his blabarg still. I do not see either how the words of Miss Austen can be “OMGUS”.

Spoiler: Ellis

Bret Easton Ellis

, American novelist and short story writer , has, whilst seemingly deeply in thought, provided but little content with which to work from. After some roleplaying that man did in the beginning (wherest he marks Madame Austen), then un-marks the woman, in hopes of “Quit[ting] with the RVS”. He then, after a great length, decides to speak to the assembly again, this time addressing, well... Madame Austen. This time he “FoS”s her. The man must’ve marked her in every possible way already. Alas, though, whilst he does mention some other authors, allst he does briefly glance over them nor seemingly mentioning them is seriousness. After being attacked by Mister Joyce, Mister Ellis seems to get “aggravated” at the “idiot” whom he perceives as “wild”.

• Thoughts:

  I am not entirely sure how to deal with this man, nor fathom why the good sir chooses to focus almost entirely on Austen. Perhaps it is coincidental that his jest mark just happened to then end up being a serious suspect of his. However, placing that aside, the man still seemed to be tunneled on the Madame, not much addressing nor responding to any other of the current events or past events. And, to be fully honest, I am not sure what to make out of that. Mister Ellis, I would deeply love it if thou can please enlighten us with thy words sharing thy thoughts on some of the authors around.

Spoiler: Snicket

Lemony Snicket

, American novelist, has been sharing consistent thoughts hither and thither. First, upon joining the discussion the man attack Mr. Mamet, whom he says is suspicious for not black-marking a person from the onset. He then, in an almost

paranoid

manner, he “urge

my

his fellow authors to vote D.M in great haste”. After getting prodded by the narrator of this exposé, the man simply muddles the talk by stating that “oddity” is an early sign of a criminal. After yours truly informs the man that a criminal would most likely attempt to blend in with the general public, the man then states “But I do agree, E.A.P, that those who blend in are as devious as those who stand out.” However, I may be misinterpreting his thought process, as later on, when he accuses me of twisting his words, I saw that the words that he first spoke could’ve been interrupted different ways. He then goes on to attack dear Miss Austen, and follows to black-mark the woman. Lastly, though, he agrees with the woman, and follows to un-mark her, and then mark me.

• Thoughts:

  This man troubles me a great deal. Truly, it is not by his menace or cadaverous features, but by the fact that I believe he can beguile us all and we would never second guess the man’s innocence. Upon first attacking the man, I was fueled by a fiery passion that has seemed to dissolve now, and upon a closer consideration, I find what the man has said and done makes much sense, even if I did not see it in the same light. However, two things stand out to me that make this man possibly a criminal. Firstly, I do not like his interaction with myself. For one thing, he started off rather soft spoken and sympathetic whilst talking to me. Upon a continue push, he starts almost getting aggravated, and seems to contrive this criminal-read on me simply in an attempt to counter my stance. It just does not seem genuine. Secondly, and somewhat corresponding with the first, is I do not like how he first attacked Miss Austen, and then followed to agree with her and black-mark me. Both Austen and himself have done this, this almost “contrived” stance against me to attempt to persecute me for my beliefs. It can, however, come to mean that Mr. Snicket hath suspected me for some time, and desired to determine Miss Austen’s alignment, and then upon finding out she is innocent, decided to go after my head again. However, I do believe this is giving too much credit, and is assuming way too much. If Mr. Snicket would please expand on the topic, I would by a happy man.

Spoiler: Kaufman

Charlie Kaufman

, American screenwriter, producer, and director, in his adaptation attempt of the assembly we are having, has been giving much insight into his world In his first scene, Kaufman follows Mr. Snicket’s mark on Mamet. In his second scene, Charlie defends The Papers and urges people to mark Mamet, whom he deems as “a villain hiding behind a frenzied mob”. In his third a currently last scene, Kaufman agrees that the Austen woman is looking for reasons to incriminate the good Doctor, and marks the woman, adding “Don't you worry, David, I'll be sure to keep a special bullet for you.”

• Thoughts:

  Hmmm... I am not sure I understand Kaufman’s stance against Mamet, and whilst he does much in calling for his head, I do not really see supporting evidence for the argument. However, I am not so quickly going to call this suspicious, for a man can sometimes feel passionately about a subject without putting much effort into putting his thoughts into words. The mark against Miss Austen feels natural. However, I would still like an explanation for why the good sir believes Mr. Mamet to be a criminal.

Spoiler: Wilde

Oscar Wilde

, Irish writer and poet, has, to my great surprise, much more talk thank I first expected. He first, after some blabarabing, agrees and adds a mark against Bradley. He then proceeds to mark the good Doctor in hopes of materializing him into our presence. After a bit, he says that he has changed his thoughts on Madamae Bradley, saying “Bradley is demonstrating a certain recklessness that seems more common to the innocent than the guilty”. He the proceeds to mark ee cummings because he demonstrates an opportunistic nature.

• Thoughts:

  I do not think there is much to incriminate Mr. Wilde, and looking overall at the words he has spoken, he seems genuine in his thoughts. Whilst I do not much like the mark against the good Doctor, which seems to be reasonless, and an attempt to look busy, I can see it coming from an innocent. Overall, I am inclined to lean the man towards the innocent spectrum.

Spoiler: Seuss

Dr. Seuss

, American writer, poet, and cartoonist, has not done much thus far. The good Doctor begins by marking Mr. Williamsen in jest. He then proceeds, after some time later, to show suspicion of The Papers – but, noting, he does not black-mark The Papers. Later, much later, he simply acknowledges that he is still with us all, and promises dear words soon..

• Thoughts:

  Based on what the good Doctor has done so far, I do not see a case for him going either way. I really do not see why others found it such a grand idea to black-mark this man, for it seems like it is simply stretching the truth- the truth that there is just simply too little information on the doctor to determine almost anything at this hour. From the push alone on the doctor, I am suspicious that it was criminal-driven and that the good doctor is indeed good, and that some criminals hoped to take an advantage from the, rather, hectic, push.

Spoiler: Williamson

Gregory Williamson

, American poet, is, whilst speaking a bit hither and thither, seemingly one with the background. From memory I do not remember a single contribution of the man. Looking at what he had to say - firstly, he adds a mark against Mr. Mamet for not marking a man - or woman - from the onset of the assembly. He then precedes to mark Mr. Wallace for determining a mark in jest randomly using a random number generator. He then precedes to mark one Ellis, for seemingly no apparent reason that I can draw out. It should be noted that ‘tis was all done consecutively. The man, a bit after, marks Madamae Bradley, for reasons I cannot draw out. In his next standing, the man gives three reads, one for Marion Bradely, whom he deems is “scum”, one for Bret Ellis whom he deems as “scum”, and one for this narrator whom he deems as “town”. As of this hour, it can be safely assumed that Mr. Williamson is still seeking the head of Madame Bradely, for his last stance at the assembly illustrated so.

• Thoughts:

  I do not much like this good sir. One thing that really strikes me is the fact of his triple posting. It seems like a feigned attempt at stream-of-consciousness. Notice, though, if he did attempt to implement that trick, he is an expert at it, because he did leave time to appear “natural” betweenst each post. Though it just strikes me as odd that the good sir did not listen to all what the others had to say, and then speak his piece. It seems contrived. For that, I am leaning the man towards the side of criminalsy.

Spoiler: Stein

Gertrude Stein

, American writer, poet, and art collector, has taken the stance in front of the assembly hither and thither. Having all the mien of one who is half-crazed, she is hard to comprehend. However, I take the endeavor with a willful heart. Firstly, the woman marks “God” in, what can only be assumed as, a jest. She then black-marks Mr. Joyce, for no reasonable reason I can fathom. She then cast a mark against The Papers, and then stated, more or less, that The Papers were attempting to fake contribution by “chronicling the events”. She then marks the woman Bradley for being one prone to “anger”. She then, after changes in the wind, black-marks the woman Austen, for “[she] is surely to be bad for her undying suspicion hatred fingerpointing toward the good Rhyming Doctor.”

• Thoughts:

  One think that confront the good narrator of this exposé right away is the fact that this woman been on every growing wagon. However, she is usually not one of the latter people to jump on, thus it is not very conclusive. Hoever, one thing that does make me somewhat suspicious of the woman is her constant mark changing. She does it so easily, almost effortlessly, without looking back, almost as if she did not really suspect her previous markings. Then again, however, I am truthful when I say that I am somewhat guilty of this myself, thusly it is not very conclusive to alignment, but rather, I suspect, more to do with the nature of the man - or woman. Nothing else from the woman beckons to me.

Spoiler: Wiseau

Tommy Wiseau

, screenwriter, director, producer, and actor, speaks wildly by extended each syllable of each words unnecessarily. Thus far, the man has first marked Mr. Danielewski in jest. He then calls out Mr. Snicket for his mark on The Papers, saying “What I do not like, is the vote of Lemony on the Boogle. The reason he gives, is not very good, and does not draw the line with his thinking” and adding a mark against the man. After being absent for a long time, and having to be brought down to the assembly after Mr. Lovecraft had sobered the man up, he says that he thinks Miss Austen is “scahhm”, because “her voting on Doctor Seuss was pretending to look for the scahhm, while not actually looking for the scahhm.”

• Thoughts:

  Nothing strikes me as out of the ordinary of this man. Whilst he has not said much, from what the man has said, nothing to note is too out of place. Granted, however, there simply is just too little information from which to work from, and thusly, I cannot begin to deduce his true colors without more.

Spoiler: Austen

Jane Austen

, English novelist, has been confronting this great assembly a good number of time thus far. The woman starts out with a mark against “God” in jest. She then marks Mr. Mamet in hopes of “moving the game along”. She then goes on to confront the growing wagon on The Papers, saying that it must not continue, and that she would go so far as to say that The Papers arst her greatest read of innocence. She urges more marks on Mr. Mamet. More blabablaring. She then says that she has two suspicions at hand, one belonging to Mr. Mamet and one to the good Doctor. She marks the latter. He says, about the latter “His only post after his random vote is prepping to go on the Bugle wagon, yet he didn't enter it; that level of opportunistic forethought is most likely to come from scum.” The good narrator of this exposé attacks the woman for simply attempting to contrive a criminal read on the doctor, and she responds by marking him. She is currently hyperventilating in her chair (which now has thick sweat stains) from all the suspicion that has been thrown her way.

• Thoughts:

  To be fully honest, I am not AS suspicious of the Madame as I once was. I can see how she attempted to be helpful and proactive by attempting to apply pressure to people who are skating the dirt. Even if it did come out in a rather awkward way. However, this is not to say that I have dropped all suspicions against the Madame. Truly, I still suspect that woman a great deal. I am just more... controlled? The way she reacts to pressure being applied to her is not very indicative of alignment either I fear. She can be a nervous innocent or a nervous criminal.

Spoiler: cummings

ee cummings

, American poet, painter, essayist, author, and playwright, has been speaking in much riddles. Firstly, the man says “a news paper brings contriversy yet promotes oneness” (I have yet to decode what “oneness” means), and marks Madame Bradley because “another woman [Bradley] proud rejects eachness(?) and a charlieman(?) pretends oneness(?).” He then starts suspecting Austen, but later on says that she is not more suspicious.

• Thoughts:

  I do not believe I am seeing why the good people of this assembly were firstly suspecting Mr. cummings. From this side of the river, I see nothing but overall nullness. Nothing beckons me forward as a possibility of coming from a criminal. Everything, indeed, seems natural, nor do I see the opportunism that was conveyed by some people as they yelped for his head.

Spoiler: Mamet

David Mamet

, American poet, painter, essayist, author, and playwright, has been missing from the assembly’s meetings for a few nights now. Recalling what had done whilst attending the meetings early on, he first marks Mr. Snicket for “being absolutely moronic and thinking that RVS is some sort of ritualistic betterment”. He then “notes that Austen is town” and marks the Papers for thinking they are attempting to gain innocence credit by defending him. He then goes inactive, and then makes a promise to attend the assembly once again soon, however has not shown up yet.

• Thoughts:

  Mamet reads as a natural innocent. Even from such very few posting, I can see genuine thought process behind the head of the good sir. While I do dearly wish the man would come and attend the assembly from his long absence, the man will be leaning towards the side of innocence for now.

Spoiler: Daily Bugle

The Daily Bugle

, New York City newspaper of the Marvel Universe, has been the topic of much controversy. Well, early on that was. The Papers first published an article condemning the ways of authors such as Stein, Wiseau, Rucks, Jacques, Bradley, and Shakespeare for “avoid[ing] current discussion”. The Papers then has an article, in the same publications, condemning the good narrator of this exposé, and calling for his head. In the second publications of The Paper, an article stating “many authors chose to deliberately ignore the conversation flowing around them ... Dr. Seuss, James Joyce, Christopher Marlowe and Bret Easton Ellis” was published. The article then goes on to say how Mr. Ellis is regarded as most suspicious of the four. In a note in the publication, The Papers seeks for answers as to why Mr. Mamet is being regarded suspicious. The Papers then disappears for a night, and then comes out claiming that there was an issue with the printing, and it should be fixed within the next 38 hours. The Paper has not published a single word since then, and remains on what appears to be a long standing hiatus, one which we can only hope it will come out of soon.

• Thoughts:

  We need dire need of more publications from the papers. In case this wasn’t clear, I will repeat for the dim: we need dire need of more publications from the papers. And no, Mr. Marlow, I fear that this case will not be solved with a simple mark against it. From working with what I have, I truly cannot see any indication one way or the other, and I will not beguile myself into thinking that I do.

Spoiler: Jacques

Brian Jacques

, English author, has been very much dull. He first marks Mr. cummings in jest. He then calls this good narrator and Mr. Snicket innocent men “butting heads”. He unmarks Mr. cummings. He then shows a slight suspicion of Williamson.

• Thoughts:

  I do not much like this man. He prickles my skin. Fr some bizarre reason, I get this feeling, this great feeling, that Mr. Jacques is so, so very lacking in decisiveness, so “wishy-washy”. He makes small petty comments hither and thither, but is very non-committal. Plain sickens the guts out of me. However, I will hold off on too much suspicion of the man, and have patience to wait for more.

Spoiler: God

“God”

, the single deity in monotheism, has been an enlightening read indeed. He first starts off my marking Wallace in jest. He then moves his great mark to Madame Bradley. He then, after some time, agrees with the marks on Miss Austen, and the reasoning. His last speech delivered addressed some authors; saying Pynchon has not given reasons for his marks, Snicket has jumped from one person to that person’s enemy, Marlow is doing nothing to pressure The Papers, and asking Shakespeare for reasons for his thoughts.

• Thoughts:

  Whilst the first much of a lot of what he has said is none-alignment indicative, I do like the last words uttered. I am see a certain genuineness that comes only from an innocent truly looking to endeavor on searching for criminals.

Spoiler: Danielewski

Mark Z. Danielewski

, American author, has but only appeared once during this assembly, and then only but to mark Rucks in what can only be interpreted as a mark in jest. Whilst the man does say “I've caught your scum”, I see not what he can be referring to.

• Thoughts:

  Here lies the epitome of nullness.

Spoiler: Bradley

Marion Zimmer Bradley

, American author, has been a source of some mistrust at some points. The woman starts off with a mark against The Papers in jest. She then, later on, goes on to say “I am still a tad suspicious of the Daily Bugle”, which does not make much sense, seeing she never illustrated a suspicion of The Papers beforehand. She then also says she is suspicious of the speed at which The Paper’s wagon has grown, and that she will make it a top priority to keep on those who were quick to jump. However, after saying all this, she remains her mark against The Papers. She is then attacked for this decision, including by “God”, which she replies with an incoherent rambling. She then, after a bit, says she has looked at some people in isolation, and has found that Miss Stein has been constantly on the growing wagons, and that Pynchon and cummings lack content. She then marks the latter of the latter, who she deems is the most criminal-like. At a later date, she marks Miss Stein, saying “I will put my vote on my number 1 suspect of this villainy that has been plaguing us.” after deeming that cummings has said enough thus far to drop his suspicion under the Stein.

• Thoughts:

  This woman troubles me beyond believe. I distrust this woman, and think she is a very high contender for a criminal. I very much dislike her Papers incident, in which she condemned the wagon, yet decided to stay on it, even though her initial mark was that of in jest. Her rambling against “God” with no usefulness seems like an attempt to look like she is contributing to the current discussion and suspicion presented against her, when in actuality she did nothing. I also do not like how she simply tosses her suspicion of Mr. cummings out of the window after the man starts to speak, almost as if her initial mark was that of wanting the man to simply speak, and not wanting the man speak so then the woman can analyze what he has said. She makes no effort in attempting to show WHY cummings words drops the man under Miss Stein.

Spoiler: Rucks

Rucks

, narrator of the game Bastion, has been illustrating his consistently during the assembly. The good sir first starts by marking Madame Stein, in a half-jest, “Kid didn't have a whole lot to go on. Decided to just vote the person he'd have the most trouble understanding. Not really fair, but better than nothin.” The man then marks The Papers. He then, after Miss Bradley gets attacked, says that he does not see insincerity in her words. At the next assembly, Rucks says he is suspicious of Austen, and he is suspicious of cummings whom did not compare Austen with Bradley. After cummings answered, Rucks decided it was well enough for him, and marked one Ellis for being “delicate” with his mark. He also expressed suspicion of Mr. Snicket for using an old reasoning to mark yours truly.

• Thoughts:

  This man is an innocent if I ever saw one. Indeed, the man has very much genuineness behind his logic and thought, and presents his thoughts in a clear and coherent manner. One thing I a little do not like is the fact the man seems to be “swingin” too much, as he himself would put it, but I do suspect this is a lot more from personality style as opposed to a nervous criminal. Other than that, I like his push and pressure on others, and his thinking process.

For those blessed with eyes, yet not use them, a very brief summary [it should be on a note that the upperst tier is strongest sign of criminal, whilst the lowest is the strongest sign of an innocent)

Marlowe, Moliere, Bradley
Shakespeare, Ellis, Williamson, Wiseau, Austen, Jacques
cummings, Daily Bugle, Danielewski
Joyce, Snicket, Kaufman, Seuss, Wallace, Stein
Wilde, Mamet, “God”
Pynchon, Rucks

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Madame Bradley

[Edgar Allan Poe]

On the kitchen floor amid a litter of champagne fifths with at least a weak air of townie America about them were David Foster Wallace, Edgar Allan Poe, James Joyce, Lemony Snicket, Charlie Kaufmann, Oscar Wilde, Gregory Williamson, Gertrude Stein, Tommy Wiseau, Jane Austen, EL James, The Daily Bugle, Brian Jacques, God, Rucks. In the living room Shakespeare, Bret Easton Ellis, ee cummings, Marion Zimmer Bradley sat over a speaker, bolted to a waste paper basket, listening to old songs from Southern Italy while loading their guns. Several boring, lazy, do nothings Christopher Marlowe, Moliere, Dr. Seuss, Mark Z. Danielewski sat passed out in chairs, the bathtub and, in one case, the bathroom sink.

I agree with much you say good sir. And I do truly believe that the best course of action at this hour is to send Madame Bradley to the gallows. I would also not mind Marlowe, Moliere, Ellis, nor Shakespeare however. I do, however, mind ee cummings, and see no evidence to condemn him, as I noted in my journal.

@MOD: Our gracious host, if I may speak to thee for a second. It is pressing matters that we must do

something

about those who have seemed to vanish from our companionship, nay? Ignoring the cold hard truth will not make matters better, I fear.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Good gentlemen, ladies, and friends,
I greatly urge thee all for haste,
For it is very near that this assembly ends,
And we cannot ignore the task we are faced.

Share a last a many a word,
For whose blood shall the gallows taste,
Be thou a first, a second, a third,
Matters not for time is treading to waste.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

OOC: V/LA for a couple of days.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

So, for the sake of the game, please make your next

post with a case

OOC, then feel free to become obtuse once more.

Oh dear Lord, no! I fear, our rather... gracious host would not like that. Truly not. For a man cannot beguile goodman Lovecraft by simply, simply...

abandoning

that which he holds so dear near his heart. In fact, good sir, for I fear I no longer see an immortal, but one who has forsaken the human race and left it withering and decaying, abandoning their good word, their word that distinguishes them from others - that which distinguishes a man from He - in fact, attempting to hide oneself behind 'OOC' is a crime in the greatest, indeed it is! For 'OOC' would mean that a man is speaking, not assembly-related, but rather of something related to one's daily life, a thing which not concern the great state of this assembly; it is a thing to note for others, that which is a mundane activity - their scheduled daily lives, their chores - which is to mean that what they speak they speak from their dear heart. One and all, for truly even criminals have a heart.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

I fear the time is very near, friends. Truly, I greatly

urge

one and all to say a last word if they wish, or to decide on a man - or woman - to send to the gallows.

For me, dear friends, I fully support Ms. Bradley as the number one contender. Her last effort only demonstrated the fact that she is attempting to cling on to dear life by attempting to beguile us that she is putting effort into this assembly, but I fear her words are weak.

That said, I will mark one Ellis if it must come down to such a thing.

OOC: @MOD, may we get a few days deadline extension? East coast is currently getting hit by a hurricane and there is power outage in many places (and I fear I may get a blackout soon also).

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Sigh

. Poe wanted this day to end. Oh, very badly. It has been dragging out unnecessarily. He will do what he must to help. Even if he did not much like it. He picked up his quill, and with a quick strike, black-marked one Ellis.

Vote: Bret Easton Ellis

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Is it a dream within a dream? All that we see or seem? And yet he, he still writes on – the Author of the Chronicles. Or can it be more, more? Members of this assembly are still of a mindset akin to a partisan.

A different day; a similar task

he thought.

Poe looked around him to the faces of the others – fewer than the day before. He saw Austen still murmuring the same nonsensical blabbering. He still saw Snicket giving him the evil eye.

But not all hope was withered with grief! Oh how it made him smile! Here was new blood, fresher than the dead parasites of the flu. Newer people to help us catch the criminals, to replace dead slots. Maybe now he would finally get a read on slots he thought long deceased.

“Interesting,” he murmured to himself.

“Well then, I hope you have had time to lax around in comfort provided by the Monsieur. Ultimately, though, you do know why all of you have been summoned? We’re here in a rather awkward state – rather chaotic. Kind are the souls who would please share their thoughts on all the manner, nay?” Slowly he looked at the friar and smiled, a rather sarcastic smile.

And then he looked around, and something caught his eye on the table. A newspaper. Another one.

He couldn't stop laughing.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

I fear I must follow in Madame Bradley's footsteps. I will be semi-V/LA until Sunday night.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Dr Seuss a town? A town!
More than her ladyship shines from the crown!
My beautiful, my beautiful, my bride and my wife.
Tell the angels to preserve his life.

I see scum. A scum? A scum!
Blabbering around all mighty and plump.
Calling for the dear doctor’s head.
When their’s should be handed to the dead.

I see many. A many a one!
Barking like some dogs with a gun.
For Seuss is such easy prey.
Easier than Phelps to say gay.

Oh so weep my eyes. My eyes!
To hear the monstrous cries.
I stand before a many a friend.
To tell you this atrocious act must end!

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Monsieur Marlowe
Madame Bradley
Monsieur Moliere – who has transformed to Confucius
Monsieur Shakespeare

[Edgar Allan Poe]

What is a dream, I ask thee?
Some are perplexed, maddened by a dream.
In a nightmare where all they do is plea?
Nay, I tell thee, it is all that we deem.

I had a dream a last a night.
Of a person getting killed madly.
But scared I was not, I was so bright.
For it was

[Vote:] Bradley

!

OOC: Sorry Snicket, will answer you later when I have a bit more time.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

2.)

Edgar Allen Poe, in Post 322 you suggested that scum were piling on Dr. Seuss. In your next post, after being asked who you want to lynch, you named four people, none of whom were voting for Dr. Seuss. Explain.

Tis true. Oh very true true,
Like madmen my mind is a screw,
Like a crazed always askew,
But surly I’m not mad, no more than you?

Sadly, though, I’m not of the divine.
But I seek I seek, like a drunk seeks wine.
I look, with eyes oh truly mine,
Yet I do not find, nor puzzle their align.

Yet a sturdy watch I do such keep,
Like a stalking man – oh such a creep,
All the while while the angels weep.
At the jumpers on the Seuss wagon, all the sheep.

It's my gut, it's so truly sad,
Yet my mind cannot explain a tad.
Does this truly make me bad?
Does this truly make me mad?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

A fight, a fight, my eyes shall weep,
Or nay lets rejoice for we are truly deep!
Methinks it's best for me to

Vote: Jane Austen

,
And let begin the Massacre of Boston.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFff Miss Jane Voldemort Austenitz is a heavenly creature of impeccable horse breeding, wearing alluring lace pantaloons overlain with abundant fru-fru. Inside lays a shiny plum peplum where I rest my exhausted spumoni ice cream. Only scumbags would sully the beckoning reputation of this filthy little woman whose ink well gets so excited at the thought of a favorable marriage.

Rhymeful pedofuls, on the other hand, leave me cold.

VOTE: Dr Seuss

I realize I was drunk on the smell of Miss Austen's chocolatey petticoats.

Dr Seuss may love chilled run, but he can nut pussy bley be scum. My vote fore him was soaked in tears of gin and whiskey.

While I see the errors of my ways, I would wager a pint that Miss Austen will be found to be a naughty-in-the-bedroom, completely honest piece of citizenry.

...thinks that it would be broken as scum as it is certainly useful for scum?

My beautiful little pig, you know that's just not possible. Why would a scumbag jeopardize his own neck of the woods, and chance a slice on his own juggler? No, Seuss is not a scumbagaroni. He would NOT use this role if pastascum - not with Fraid Feltphs screaming for his demise.

I was very drunk on your enchanting fumes once again, and I swear I counted the votes and calculated and lactated that you were dead. I was very, very far from anything assembling the truth. Inebriation, Sir! Al Kohel said so!

UNVOTE: Seuss

A kill! Kill! Kill!
Thou sir, have went downhill,
Thou hath killed,

killed

, all my thrill,
And now give me the chill.

Vote: James "The Lost" Joyce

.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

My dear my dear.

At once. 1s.

1.

1 is a vote for death.

It is a cry for hope.

It is malice.

2s.

2.

2 is the dear departed.

It is the swallower.

It is the fearful.

3s.

3.

3 is the exchange.

It is the blinder.

It is the traitor; the upriser.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

4.) I am suspicious of Edgar Allen Poe because his thought process does not follow: he ridiculed the players voting for Dr. Seuss but then called four players not voting Dr. Seuss his top suspects. He then acknowledged this inconsistency and promptly avoided it.

Reading ≠ succeeding.

Misleading ⊆ Misreading.

Proceeding ≤ exceeding.

Pleading > conceding.

∴

✓

IFF

Rereading = leading.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Gracious host I would like to declare.
A V/LA till next Thurs-day.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

398 ----> Test of Water.


410 ----> The Hesitancy.


413 ----> The Turncloak.


lim t->∞ ∫[0,t] (410-398)t = Undefined!

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Mestro Poe could you come back and explain a tad your odd post? I understand the first three lines, but that last line looks very much like some Terran gibberish.

A man a man a man any man,
Is but a simpleton with a clear mind,
For Joycey to change his in short span,
Means he is surly criminal aligned!

[Edgar Allan Poe]

"I wonder if anybody else finds the exchange between Austen and Poe to be a little exaggerated. I think perhaps that Miss Austen thought to disassociate herself from Mister Poe by playing the victim. It would certainly help to defend from fallout should either be found out."

VOTE: Poe

TRUE! -- nervous -- very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am;
but why

will

you say that I am mad? The disease had sharpened my senses --
not destroyed -- not dulled them. Above all was the sense of hearing acute.
I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell.
How, then, am I mad? Hearken! and observe how healthily --
how calmly I can tell you the whole story.

2.) Edgar Allen Poe, why did you get the impression that Jane Austen might be a "nervous" criminal in Post #172? That is peculiar word choice. Explain where you saw the nervousness.

Chop, chop, chop. One can take a whole and make but little --
Surely,

surely

it is a sign, not from above but from down below:
The netherworld, where demons lurk, smiling a brightly haunting smirk,
Greeting with "Let us play a game. It's called 'evisceration'. Would thou like to know the rules?"
Thou swallow hard, and hard, and harder - yet thou cannot stomach the anguish.
It spews down from the choice, from the initial choice - to chop, chop, chop.

-- The name is Edgar All

a

n Poe. Just thought I'd make a note of it.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Lo and behold. The deadline is but three and a half days from now.

Three. It rhymes with we.

Half. It rhymes laugh.

Now. It rhymes with brow.

We

sweat on our

brow

as a

laugh

slowly comes and engulfs us. We must decide. Quickly now friends!

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Edgar Allan Poe, either answer questions sensibly or eat rope.

A rope.

A rope around the animals's neck.

A rope around 
my
 neck.

I first behold this apparition (of myself nonetheless) - 

for I could scarcely regard it as less - 

and my wonder and my terror are extreme.

There was meat enough to have feasted the Anakim.

Yet it was disregarded.

People enjoyed what they came here to do.

Watch people eat rope.

What a sad day it truly was.

Mmmmmmm, rope.

--

As for your "question" - you chopped, chopped, chopped, what I said.

And you spewed it at me like it was gold being handed down from the divine.

Answer thy own questions sir, before thou seek answers in others.

Re-read, in full, and lo and behold.

For what thou say I say and what I say are not of similar character.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Vote: William Shakespeare.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

To flatter worthless queries likes me not.
  So oft I've writ of giants of the past
Too virtuous for this politick world
  Who get their deaths from those whose fears they fought.
Alas, I lack the powers that they had                              (VT)
  But still I feel their suff'ring as mine own.

VOTE: Williamson
VOTE: ee cummings

You claim a simpleton with no powers, and then you follow to double vote? What madness is this?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Mod, can we get a prod on EL James', Cummings', Rucks', Stein's , Seuss', and Kaufman's mains please?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Stein, Stein, Stein, STEIN
Let us kill this witch of nine.

Vote: Gertrude Stein

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Consider Poe, whom Ms. Austen fought so bitterly with when this all began. Is it possible that this feud was engineered to hide their connection to one another?

Ah, my dear Wilde. It seems thou art simply trying to fit square pieces into a cylinder.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

To whoever asked about my irritation at being ignored, I get better reads from people acknowledging my existence and interacting with me. Most of my posts may be florid, but they are contentful and I would like to know they are not just being discarded. I do like my limelight and would likely have some of it if this wasn't an alted game.

Woe woe, Monsieur Danielewski. We all have our worries and troubles. Some of us like to contain them, if thou know my meaning.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Joyceie 

is

a

Criminal.


Stein

is

a

Criminal.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

A kill! A kill! By hope of will!
A man is scum! A man is dumb!

Vote: James Joyce

[Edgar Allan Poe]

I know these are not the results of any official investigation, so you'd be well-served to present them as the opinion they are.

Vote: Poe

This is hilariously bad, Madame, thou knowst it, and I knowst it. Thou will not escape my grasp!

[Edgar Allan Poe]

On       |   for 

the      |   ONE

MORROW   |   Madame 

DEATH    |   "Loosey pants"

awaits   |   Stein.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

     ______
Stein | |    DEATH

DEATH | |    Stein

Stein |      DEATH

DEATH |      Stein

Stein | \    DEATH

DEATH |  \   Stein

VOTE: |___\  
Stein

[Edgar Allan Poe]

OOC: Sorry I have been kind of slacking on this game, will get to it soon.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

OOC: (sorry haven't read much of this, just kind of skimmed, will be reading later, but just wanting to point something)

Wow wow, so did all actions get redirected to Williamson or not? Because, here, Confucius claimed:

On Night Two, I tried to look for players who seemed like they could be connected to either Jane Austen or William Shakespeare. I ended up targeting OscarWilde.

that he targeted Wilde successfully?

So Snicket got dragged by the lighting rod but Confucius didn't?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

This also should've been quoted, sorry:

Last night I asked the Mod if I had successfully targeted OscarWilde on Night Two (the alleged "Lightning Rod" Night), and it was confirmed that I had

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Also, according to the NAR, inspect roles resolve after redirects?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Wait, no, I got that backwards

[Edgar Allan Poe]

My apologies, I still have not read in depth yet. However, from what I have read I am in support of a Snicket lynch.

__________________________
           |/|
           |/|
           |/|
           |/|
           |/|
           |/|
           |/| /¯)
           |/|/\/
           |/|\/
          (¯¯¯)
          (¯¯¯)
          (¯¯¯)
          (¯¯¯)
          (¯¯¯)
          /¯¯/\
         / ,^./\
        / /   \/\
       / /     \/\
      ( (       )/)
      | |       |/|
      | |       |/|
      | |       |/|
      ( (       )/)
       \ \     / /
        \ `---' /
         `-----'

Vote: Snicket

[Edgar Allan Poe]

I dislike how Phelps deflected Joyce's question, which was a good one as well. However, the rest of his content makes me think he is an innocent.

Phelps looks like an innocent caught up in a tunnel. Now that the choice is between him and Miss Austen, I do not believe that tunnel will be alleviating anytime soon.

Mmmm tasty.

Vote: Phelps

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Dear madness, Marlowe's ghost is still alive?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

So explain to me, Mr. Poe, why are you going after a Fruit Vendor who is not allowed to kill, under pain of missing action = lynched slot?

Good sir, either

I'm

missing something, or thou knowst something the rest of the plain folks don't? Why are thou assuming that criminals cannot take a shot during night and send off fruits on their merry way?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

(On the same night, that is. Take both actions, that is. On the same night.)

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Are you even reading the game? No. Of course you aren't or you'd have cast your vote against "Hogan" rather than "Phelps." Get to steppin'.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Also, I am inclined to believe that the neighborizer is scum rather than town at this hour.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

I can confirm I did not get no fruit. Who got my food?! ..... no unvote Poe?

No. I am still unconvinced, and unvoting will not do much. But I am inclined to listen, and if I find a better place for my marker, I shall use it well.

Also, I am inclined to believe that the neighborizer is scum rather than town at this hour.

Explain.

All in due time, my dear Danielewski.

But I am waiting to hear who "God" has neighborized, currently.

Vote: Rucks

"This man still needs to die a slow painful death. I can do it with some tools I have in my bag, if need be." she states while showing her bag full of bondage materials.

The man is bloody obviously not a criminal, thou wouldst do much better focusing on those that can be criminals.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Let's make this blindingly obvious so that you can quit stalling:

I have a direct line to God. It seems the

house

is next to a church

to the Minotaur

PRAISE HIM

wait wrong flavor again.

Come again, good sir?

Now, explain why you think he's scum and how who God's neighbor is is in any way relevant to this read.

It is best not to hurry things along at a faster pace than fate intends them to.

Neither do I really recall me stating that God's neighbor is in any way relevant to his alignment. A curious eye is not always a delving eye, dear friend.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

(I'm assuming you're neighborized with "God", from your attempted "blatant-sy" )

[Edgar Allan Poe]

OOC: 1-Shot Mafia Neighborizer is as bad as Mafia Fruit Vendor.

Yes, let's all speculate on what abilities the criminals have, and attempting to outguess what mastermind plans our gracious host has planned. That is so clever!

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Stop stalling.

Stop stalling.

'

Prophet

!' said I, 'thing of

evil

! -

prophet

still, if

man

or

de

v

il

! -
Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate yet all

undaunted

, on this desert land enchanted -
On this home by horror haunted - tell me truly, I implore -
Is there -

is there

balm in Gilead? - tell me - tell me, I implore!'

---

Trust me, good sir. There is no such good that comes from rushing fate.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Interesting, I seem to be on every lynch. Better keep that streak up.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

If it's 3-3, and with my horrible analysis, it comes down to something like:

Purple scum are one of: TS Eliot, James, Hogan, Kaufman, Wilde

Orange scum are one of: Spinning Paper, Rucks, Shaft, Danielewski

Dani and Rucks are strong town reads for me, leaving Eliot, Jame, Hogan, and Wilde for purple.

Kaufman is town leaving Shaft and Paper for orange.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

(That is VC analysis, to be specific. Which is sometimes

very

misleading.)

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Oh... I see what you were looking for now and I sincerely apologize for fucking that one up. That one is my bad.

>.>
<.<

*holsters weapon*

unvote

The only thing about Shaft being orange is ^ seems genuine *shrug* Can still be faked I guess?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Ce grand malheur, de ne pouvoir être seul.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Straight up, out of everybody Poe listed as possible scum, the only one I'm willing to vote right now is Hogan.

I understand I am voting the man, but I am having trouble understanding something, and perhaps thou can be of assistance. Why would Mr. Hogan claim to have targeted someone if he knew 100% that the man did not got it (assuming he took the shot last night for his team and he can't take both actions at the same time). I mean, only the fact that he relies on us believing he got roleblocked or some other shenanigans?

Also, what did you mean by that last Poe?

All in due time. Perhaps today. Perhaps another day.

OOC: Also, one thing to note: 4:4:16 is scum overpowered, especially considering that every criminal has flipped a power role. However, 3:3:18 is generally townsided, I believe (unless most of the town is VTs and the scums are loaded with powers?). I am toying with the idea of traitors belonging on each 3 man team, but do not think it exists in the game.

(Another crackpot theory is 3:3:1:17, with the SK being able to shoot regularly, however the scumteams rotate odd/even.)

But alas, enough attempting at outguessing our gracious host now.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Kindly submit to clams. Or calm. Or claim. Yes, claim now.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

(Sorry, couldn't resist quoting that, it was one of my favorite Joyce lines .)

[Edgar Allan Poe]

I'm looking hard at Kaufman, but

Vote: Poe

Thou surest do love to vote masons, don't thou?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Wait, I'm not understanding why there was 2 kills yesterday if we are assuming the Purple Team is eliminated?

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Hmm, scum tracker? (or are we assuming scum can't take an action and kill?)

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Wait, I'm dumb, poison.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

________________
  _______________,,.
    /_____________.;;'/|
   |"____  _______;;;]/
   | || //'         ;
   | ||//'          ;
   | |//'           ;
   |  /'            $
   | ||             $
   | ||             $
   | ||            ,^.
   | ||            | |
   | ||            `.'
   | || 
   | || 
   | || 
   | || 
   | ||   _________________________   
   | ||  /                        4
   | || /                        /| 
   | ||/           _____        / /
   | ||           /|___/       / /|
   | ||          / |  /       / /||
   |_|/         / cj /       / / ||
  /             """""       / /| ||
 /                         / / | ||
/                         / /  | ||
""""""""""""""""""""""""""|/   | ||
__________________________f|   | |
| ||                    | ||           
| ||                    | ||    
| ||                    | ||
| ||                    | ||
| ||                    | ||
| |                     | |

Vote: Eliot

Yea, couldn't miss my chance of being on every lynched wagon.

[Edgar Allan Poe]

Gg guys.