Author Mafia - Game Over!

[Lemony Snicket]

VOTE: David Mamet

An associate of mine did not vote once. He did not lead a very eventful life, as those who do not vote are prone to do.

[Lemony Snicket]

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.

[Lemony Snicket]

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

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.

Others are not acting as well, but this has been noted by the Daily Bugle. In fact, the Daily Bugle seems to be making a career out of noting inactivity.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: The Daily Bugle

[Lemony Snicket]

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.

Do you believe the Daily Bugle is devious?

[Lemony Snicket]

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.

Much like when I watch football (the one that does not involve much use of one's foot), I do not believe I am following. In the game of mafia, there is not one particular ways the criminal acts, for if there was, we would be able to identify that behavior and then send them to the gallows. I was merely trying to say that those who who vote in the "Random voting stage" are not suddenly absolved from suspicion in my mind, yet Mamet's initial post and his response did not make much sense.

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.

As I said, my problem is the former. The Bugle is merely attempting to note those who are not contributing to the conversation. However, we all clearly have eyes, or else we would not be able to write the miserable works we do, and we can see who is and who is not contributing.

Marion Zimmer Bradley's response to "God" was similar to the rambling's of the Baudelaire's banker Poe when his cough took him and he had a strong fever. Surely M.Z.B does not have a fever, so I don't understand the motivations for the response whatsoever.

[Lemony Snicket]

Poe, your most recent message about regarding me confuses me. It also twists my words like a wet sponge under a running faucet which is being rung by a man with one hand.

After poking him, he simply states that anything “odd” is a sign of a criminal.

I am not sure what you are referring to because I never said anything of the sort. Here are all mentions of "oddity" in my messages:

It was an oddity, which means something strange and worth a vote.

I'm afraid that when searching for these criminals in the early stages of our game ... oddities are the best we can find.

Perhaps the first quote is what you are referring to? It still does not translate to what you mean remotely. In the excerpt of your post I quoted and the rest of your post, you use odd in its general definition: something that seems slightly out of place. But as you can see with your dreary eyes, I have defined it as something that is strange

and

worth a vote. In the second excerpt, you see that I search for oddities in the early game. Later in the game, I find the criminals with more solid grounding in logic.

You then accuse me of hypocrisy because I have been accusing Mamet and the Bugle of inaction, yet somehow I have been inactive as well. This makes little sense. Hypocrisy is a term which is embodied in the saying "not practicing what you preach." My vote for Mamet was based on his lack of vote, not just because he was "odd," as you put it. I voted Mamet and then, when his reaction seemed paranoid, urged others to vote for him. I see no hypocrisy. My vote on the Bugle was based on the fact that it has been stating things that we all clearly see and not acting on them. Again, I do not see how this is similar to what I am doing.

The detail here may seem woefully unnecessary, but it is because it seems that you are, as you say, "sowing the seeds of chaos" towards me. I had not thought it before, but now that you are blatantly twisting my words, it seems possible.

--------

Other, dire, miserable, bad things:

I am not troubled by G.S., and don't share the concerns of my fellow authors with her change of votes, which incidentally are not for President regardless of the election season.

I find the V.C.A., being done so early strange, most recently by E.A.P and M.Z.B. since, as noted by others, we have not had flips so using it as justification for votes or suspicions is meaningless. M.Z.B.'s vote on E.C seems unjustified, and I am concerned that she is delirious.

[Lemony Snicket]

Jane,

I agree with Mr Wilde's vote for Dr. Seuss, but we must remember that Seuss is not simply the chosen lurker. Votes must not go his way only because he does not post!

It is true that a vote should have substance, a word which here means "reason behind it." Yet I do not see a reason for a Seuss vote other than that he has been lurking in the shadows. Why are his rhymes and poems scummy?

[Lemony Snicket]

Jane,

Joyce is perhaps right, but when lurking is so commonplace surely lurking out of sight is better disguised - less likely to get a person in trouble? For surely Joyce cannot believe that his threesome has posted less useful information than those who have not posted at all! As such I consider being in love with one's own voice, rather than scumhunting a null tell; it is a failing on the player's part.

But why is an author whose mouth is sealed shut different from an author who is faking contributions? How are you not hunting a "null tell" (which my research tells me is "lurking," a vapid thing that is indeed done by either alignment) by voting Seuss? The fact that, as you say, the three posters have contributed little means little since their contributions are fruitless and might as well be nothing, and furthermore I do not see how that exonerates you from, as you say, hunting null tells.

The tabloid will have to wait, although I am waiting for their next issue as I wait for the next letter from Beatrice that will never come.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Jane Austen

[Lemony Snicket]

Sir, I pray that your apparent ignorance does not come from a position of trouble making; for, to be sure, that was my point exactly. If you are not going to find a player wicked for forgetting to post - a view I have urged many times while you were absent - then you should not find them wicked for forgetting to contribute.

I'm afraid I'm not following, Jane. Maybe I am too dense to understand, even though I have always thought of myself as one who is not throughout these tumultuous years. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that that was your point in comparing Seuss to the three writers, even though I'm not reading that in your post. The point I got was that Seuss was more likely to be a criminal for a lack of contributing than the three writers, who at least contributed something, even if it is as worthless as a piece of gum already chewed.

I pray that you spare my blushes and do not urge me to repeat my minor little thoughts. Instead you can read my post 107, an answer to your question from before; you seemed to have ignored it, why?

I saw it, but thought your post I responded to was a more pressing matter. If one skins #107 down, much like the villainous Count Olaf skins fire fighters, one sees a vote on someone with little to no content. It is flimsy. I asked that question, if I was not clear, because you said this:

For surely Joyce cannot believe that his threesome has posted less useful information than those who have not posted at all!

In which I assumed you were referring to Seuss (among other quiet, quiet people) when you said "those who have not posted at all." To me, it looked like you were changing your position: The Seuss vote was not for what you said in #107, but for a lack of posts. Am I misunderstanding this?

Also, Jane, if you were to read Rucks' mention about you in his most recent posting again, you will find that wasn't what he was saying at all.

------

Other points of interest:

There is a certain clarity in Wallace's and Wilde's posts that makes me think they are not criminals, although I do admit it is a "gut" reaction, a phrase which here means it is merely instinct.

I also see the opportunism in cummings' post. Ee, how does Austen compare to the author you are voting, Bradley, in terms of likelihood to be a criminal?

[Lemony Snicket]

I was referring to the quiet people when I said "those who have not posted at all"; The Joyce threesome has contributed no less than the lurkers, and have done so in a more obvious way - when lurking is so commonplace, active lurking is pointless. Is the difference between Poe and you, that Poe thinks non-posters must not be suspected, while you think that scum that lurk may only only be suspected by those that can't acknowledge lurking? Seuss wasn't even mentioned in my reply to Joyce! If you have eyes, then you could see that non-posting was an epidemic, and not restricted to just one scummy poster.

I believe I understand what you are saying. Yes, it is as clear as a pool of water that has not yet been muddled with waste, sludge, and toxens. I shall

UNVOTE:

And I will

VOTE: Edgar Allan Poe

Do not think I didn't notice you ignore my accusations in post #90. I still believe those accusations today.

On another note, Ellis looks like he is hiding a lack of content in his style.

[Lemony Snicket]

3 Lemony Snicket, thou hast moved thy vote from Jane Austen unto Jane Austen's death candidate. Speak more on this lack of CONVICTION.

There are times when a man can elaborate on a subject, such as a hobby, occupation, or favorite sports team. I myself am not sure what else to say on the issue of my vote.

I've come to the conclusion, through Jane's responses to my accusations, that my grievances, a word which here means complaints, towards her were unjustified. In general, I thought she made a comparison between three authors and her previous suspect, Seuss, yet it turns out I was making out things that weren't there.

If you read post 90 you will find, among other things, accusations that Poe is twisting my words and attempting to "sow the seeds of chaos" which he accused me of doing himself. Read his miserable excerpt about me in post 69 and attribute it to things I've done during our game. You will find that you will not be able to, because the rationale he states for what I did is not what it is at all.

The lack of response was similar to speaking to a suspicious man in a dark alleyway and then the man's only reply being that he is a mute. It was telling and suspicious, for if an innocent man is accused of sowing chaos, my Lord, wouldn't he want to respond?

[Lemony Snicket]

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.

Even though I seemed "soft-spoken," I still could not understand the motivations for your first line of questions. My vote on Mamet was not unfounded, especially in that state of our miserable meeting. I thought maybe style was muddling, a word which here means confusing, our communications and I was misunderstanding you or perhaps vice-versa. But when you posted post 69, I realized you were lying about my actions.

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

Are you suggesting that my suspicions of Austen are related to my suspicions of you and vice versa? They are not. Really, the idea confuses me as it does when I receive a letter from my long-lost love Beatrice once every two weeks. I suggested that you were a criminal in post #90, which was before Austen did. Although a vote did not come until after, it is still, as I said in the post where I voted you, for those very same reasons in post #90, not because of the opinions of Austen or others.

In short, I am not "agreeing with Austen," as you say. I have come to my own conclusion about you and did so well before she did.

[Lemony Snicket]

When a hand of fate gives you extra time, no matter what the time is for, it should be used for productivity and good rather than awful evil. Looking at who is calling who a criminal, I see many wagons, a term which here means groups of people who think a certain person is a criminal and should be the one who leaves our gathering for today.

I still believe Poe is a criminal, however in the interest of progress, I will join the following wagons if need be:

Marion Zimmer Bradley: She has been absent for over a fortnight, but her posts in which she criticized God for irrelevant facts and used vote count analysis at this early stage in our gathering are criminal.
Bret Easton Ellis: His posts are full of hot air, an expression which means there is no substance to them. Indeed, they are long in length, which allows the simple viewer to believe he is contributing more. But once one actually reads the rambling narrative which is similar to that of a later Robert Jordan novel, they find that there is little content to be found.
The Daily Bugle: The publisher has been absent for awhile, so they are not the best choice. However, the general observations that plagued their publication are still signs of a criminal today as they were a month ago.

The rest of the wagons are not wagons on evildoers, I fear. It will take shocking developments for me to vote Ms. Austen again. Cummings I have seen little to indicate a criminal except a certain post of opportunism, but he explained it well enough.

[Lemony Snicket]

I have little time. The men of the side of the schism that burn are outside my doorstep. However, I will say that we need to make a decision and with the scarcity some authors make, I will mark my change of vote now.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Bradley

[Lemony Snicket]

I apologize for my absence, but a robust woman named Sandy came to my doorstep and blew down my power lines. She had some nerve.

I will read the posts that transpired and hopefully have something to say then. Apparently we are nearing a consensus on Ellis? Allow me to research and I will consider changing my vote.

[Lemony Snicket]

Author Joyce is correct - Ellis should "claim," as they say, before we decide to exile him from our gathering. However, since it takes thirteen of us to come to a consensus, not twelve, I see no harm in placing my vote now.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Ellis

[Lemony Snicket]

I have a few things I need to look into, since my thoughts on who the criminals are have not been accurate thus far. One of these things is the author Edgar. As of now I still believe he is one of the criminals, however there is a certain post which does not seem like the post a criminal would make, due to its length (some would say it is as long as a snake that is kept by a trio of orphan's estranged late uncle). When I find the time and I am not being chased by a traveling circus troupe, I will examine the logic and breadth of material of that post more in depth, along with the rest of the things he has said at this gathering.

While I dislike Seuss ending the day abruptly (especially immediately after I said he should claim), the lack of content makes me pause at considering the vote. Jane, I realize we've had a variation of this dialogue before, but why do you feel so strongly about Seuss being a criminal when he has said so little to judge upon?

[Lemony Snicket]

Everything he has said is completely scum; he's had the same number of scummy posts as they the typical scum, but is missing the null posts that normally accompany them. He is still scum because his posts come from opportunism rather than scumhunting, and his lack of posts should not let him be forgiven from it.

I have to agree with this. The rhymer Seuss still has not come down for our gathering today, despite the fact that his name has been mentioned frequently. Also, I have to agree with the sentiment, a word which here means feeling or idea, that Seuss calling Ellis a "good guy," before he forced him out of our gathering is suspect.

For now I will

VOTE: Seuss

I have not found the time to check the posts I wanted to. But I do acknowledge that I am looking at Poe with the "evil eye," as he said. As the giving of Thanks, also known as a holiday that contributes to the mass genocide of turkeys everywhere, approaches my schedule becomes more booked, so I am not sure when I will be able to give Poe's novelette a look.

[Lemony Snicket]

Seuss - is your vote on me reactionary? Surely it must be.

Also a clarification:

That guy I hammered was town because what were the odds that the big L1 wagon would be on scum?

Are you saying you thought Ellis was scum or not? You seem to be changing your opinion on this, unless I'm not understanding what you mean here like I don't understand why I wake up in the middle of the night whispering "Beatrice."

Ms. James: what has Rucks done to make you think he is a criminal?

[Lemony Snicket]

4.) Lemony Snicket, what were the "few things" you had to "look into?" Have you done so yet?

Those few things were, as I said, Poe's novella, a word which here means a novel but shorter, and the posts of Bradley, and Shakespeare.

There is only one aspect that bothers me about Poe's long post, and that is the order of his scumreads. Marlowe and Moliere were two authors that were nonexistent yesterday, but Poe marked them as his highest scum reads. His rationale for them being a criminal is practically nonexistent as well. Yet they are his two top scum reads. However, this is not necessarily something that makes Poe a criminal. It is only an oddity. I'd like him to address why he found these two to be his top criminals yesterday regardless.

I have to agree with Pynchon that it is strange that Shakespeare excuses Willamson for calling for votes but then pushes Wallace for the same thing. Shakespeare, a very prolific author, can you elaborate instead of pushing back on Pynchon, who brought up a good point?

I still feel that Bradley is a criminal. Her posts today have not exonerated her.

----------

Seuss - can you address my clarification I asked for in my last post?

Spinning Paper is another example of being lost in style, except instead of hiding a lack of content in a terrible ocean of words, the paper says nothing because he is obsessed with speaking in headlines, just like a master criminal is obsessed with committing the perfect heist.

Confucius, you asked four questions in your previous post, if you have somehow forgotten because you suffered a brain injury that somehow Confucian historians did not know about. What did you find from these answers? Who is a criminal? Who is not?

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.

[Lemony Snicket]

I do not have much to say, for speaking on a Tuesday evening while there are bad men pelting stones at your windows is generally an inadvisable task. Instead, one facing this situation should create some diversion and sneak away from their house in order to avoid being pelted themselves.

That said, I will shamelessly echo what others have said, and also repeat myself:

Spinning Paper, your tendency to not divulge your motivations makes it difficult for myself and the rest of the town to discern your alignment. Thus, if you do not do so either through a multitude of headlines or through a post out of character in your next post, I will be more unhappy than when I was when I learned the fate of Beatrice.

Poe, one of my few weaknesses is interpreting poetry. What are you trying to say in #322?

I do have an issue with Bradley's most recent post, but I will not bring it up until Austen addresses it.

[Lemony Snicket]

Spinning Paper, your tendency to not divulge your motivations makes it difficult for myself and the rest of the town to discern your alignment. Thus, if you do not do so either through a multitude of headlines or through a post out of character in your next post, I will be more unhappy than when I was when I learned the fate of Beatrice.

Cold War escalates.

Did you refuse my request out of laziness, or because you are unable to fabricate something that will not make you look like a criminal?

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Spinning Paper

My inquiry still stands. If you will excuse me, I have a meeting under an old stone clock tower with a man with a beard but no hair who I have been trying to meet for quite some time.

[Lemony Snicket]

I see we have been transported back in time to the Colosseum.

I agree with Rucks that a "Gladiator" type of ability seems counter-intuitive for a criminal to have. If a criminal had such an ability, then they would presumably attract more votes as people looked between the two choices. There is no motivation for a criminal Seuss to force such a situation as well.

Danielewski -

I understand that the paper speaks in headlines, but many are unclear (especially the response to my request). And the paper has spoken without headlines before. The lack of clarity and seeming ignorance of my request is what prompted my vote, not the fact that he speaks in headlines.

Regarding the three you asked about:

Austen's argument with Seuss has put her in the light of a criminal, while it has put Seuss in the light of, for the lack of a word that will better convey what I want to say, a gladiator. Her #388 and Seuss's #390 are what made me believe that (specifically in 390, the point he made about the contradiction between Austen's #107 and her most recent statements, as well as the general dodgyness, a word which apparently is not an actual word, in her arguments).

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.

Stein is a possible criminal. Her vote has floated around as much as a frog crossing a busy street, and she blatantly role fished in her most recent post.


UNVOTE:
VOTE: Austen

[Lemony Snicket]

That does not seem stricly speaking true. Seuss had Phelps against him, and with the game state being as it was he had motive to cut the day short; you are giving him what he wanted. It may be pertinent to note that his suspicion of me only came when I was one of the largest wagons - he voted me in post 380 - and that he had obvious reasons as a criminal not only to cut the day short, but also to demonstrate his power. There are no shortage of motives for the criminal Seuss.

You seem to be arguing that Seuss was in some sort of imminent danger, as if we were tying the rope around his head just before he shouted his ability to transport large amounts of people to Ancient Rome. Look at the last vote count before the Gladiator, and you will see that is false, a word which simply means "wrong." Seuss' wagon was diminished to two, you and Phelps. I see no motivation for a criminal Seuss to end the day. He was in no danger, his suspect was under pressure. I think Seuss called for the Gladiator match out of frustration, and a criminal would have no reason to be frustrated under those circumstances. An innocent would.

[Lemony Snicket]

Confucius - while I do see the value of asking questions (for example, if you want to hear, I am about to ask you multiple), action is important if we want to move forward as a group. Have you read the game? Do you have any thoughts on alignments of players? And, I asked you this before but you dodged it like the Quagmire triplets dodge hawks trying to poke a hole in their floating home, what information have you gathered from the answers you've received?

Pynchon makes some interesting points about Rucks that I'll have to look into when there are no frightening men in suits asking me to give them money. I've thought the man an innocent, but if the contradictions Pynchon points out are true, then his allegiances are indeed called into question.

[Lemony Snicket]

I read through Rucks' ISO, and I believe Pynchon must have misinterpreted #143, as Rucks does not call the two of them criminals.

I see Confucius has not returned. For now there is nothing wrong with that, as it seems the conference room has been as empty as a basin of water laid out in the desert. Hopefully he realizes that I asked him a question in my last post.

[Lemony Snicket]

First, I apologize for offending you Confucius with my first question, but it was interesting to see your reaction.

You keep acting like my questions are keys that I use to unlock deep secrets into players. They are not. The fact that I ask a question does not mean I have great things to say, or that an answer will immediately clear things up for me.

Again, I apologize for overestimating the values of your questions, but the way you defended why you ask the questions earlier today made me do so.

Williamson, your thoughts on the rest of the game? Your vote on Phelps was your first actual post in roughly two hundred of them.

[Lemony Snicket]

Shakespeare's push on two lurkers is perhaps the most hypocritical thing I've seen since I saw a man of God stealing from the needy. He is perhaps one of the most prominent lurkers of this game.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Shakespeare

His double vote is also strange, interesting, but overall miserable. Whether or not it is symbolic we shall see. But I feel like it was a weak attempt to dissuade those calling for his head by faking he had a hidden power.

[Lemony Snicket]

Also I believe God had a question for me.

Snicket's post 400has a vote for Austen, while calling Austen a criminal and Suess a...gladiator?
However, he did have day1 Austen votes.
He was also voting Suess early in day 2
He moves to spinning Paper, giving the same reason as his vote for Suess but the vote actually comes in 369.

There was no agreement or arguement from Snicket with Suess about the Austen case Suess presented when he called her to combat.

I would like to hear more about how your vote went to Austen in 400 when it was on Suess prior to combat.

I believe I mentioned this in post 400, although I may not have. But Seuss being both a criminal and a gladiator was quite improbable, as what use would a criminal have for making it so that others could only vote him or whoever he chooses to gladiate (that is not a word, but sometimes proper wordsmiths must create them for the interest of progress and heroism).

Furthermore, Seuss was looking more and more like an innocent (which is what I meant by "gladiator," although I can see how one might not glean that) during his arguments with the criminal Austen.

[Lemony Snicket]

The actions of Joyce I cannot see being the actions of an innocent. Innocents do not pretend that they have powers in order to garner reactions, much like a lawyer does not claim to be a witness in a law trial in order to improve his ailing case. No, Joyce used this as an excuse to rectify his mistake.

VOTE: Joyce

What is your opinion on Joyce, Bradley? You have not commented, a word which here means stated your opinion, on him.

I note Stein only justifying her vote by saying that Poe is a "criminal," which is thrown around prolifically at this meeting, and not mentioning why her original reasoning was legitimate.

[Lemony Snicket]

v/la until hopefully only Thursday or Friday

[Lemony Snicket]

ooc: I need to look at the claims, and the events of today in general. My computer is getting fixed and I hopefully will have it later today, so expect something from me tonight or tomorrow.

I think Stein is scum, so if I decide that both Wilde and Confucius are town, I will vote her.

[Lemony Snicket]

ooc: Computer didn't come back yesterday as I hoped. Sorry for the delay. I did look at Wilde's/Confucius' ISOs.

Snicket, claim in your next post.

Only a fool, a dunce, or an octopus would claim their role while having no reason to. And the Spinning Paper telling me to is not a reason.

As my associate Daniel Handler said above, I looked into the claims. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable and slightly queasy is Wilde stating he was a role cop, then a flavor cop, then a role cop. Very curious.

Stein is the bigger villain, criminal, or bad person.

PEDIT: However, I see that Hogan has put her one vote within a hammer. So I ask her to claim, and I declare intent to cast her out of this meeting.

[Lemony Snicket]

VOTE: Stein

This is what the other citizens of this horrible site where people simulate lynchings and murders call "L-1."

Also, I did not realize the Spinning Paper had been taken over by crackpots, psychopaths, and dentists. Asking me to claim (and calling me a murderer for refusing) is beyond ridiculous.

[Lemony Snicket]

I see I am already two away from being lynched. Very well. I am the watcher.

N1 there was moderator error and I received a tracking result instead of watching result. I watched/tracked David Foster Wallace, and saw him go nowhere.
N2 I watched Seuss but was dragged along with the Lightning Rod. I saw no one, because there were too many people visiting Williamson and I couldn't tell who was who.
N3 I watched Seuss again, and no one visited him.
Last night, I watched Confucius, but my action was not successful.

Now, if you all could stop voting me, that would be as wonderful as when I dream about Beatrice.

[Lemony Snicket]

ooc because I'm lazy:

night 2, you watched the lightning rod and instead of seeing everyone who visited him due to his ability, you saw no one?

I pretty much gave the wording I had in my N2 action -- there were so many people that I couldn't tell who was who. It would be pretty ridiculous if I saw everyone, because then I would have seen every single PR who submitted an action last night and was dragged by the rod.

Re the mod error thing: There was no correction, and I didn't ask for a clarification beyond asking why I got a tracker result. I assumed that if he wanted to give me a result, he would have when he said he made a mistake.

Wilde, I chose Seuss because he was pretty much conftown (and the only, iirc) N2and N3. Confucius I thought would be NKed tonight, or at least the target of SOME activity by scum.

[Lemony Snicket]

Most people would say death is a horrifying thing. It is comparable to, say, being forced to go to different restrooms than another group of people. Or it is comparable to stubbing your toe on hot concrete. In the last instance, it is your own fault for having an open toe around hot concrete.

Some do not fear death, mostly out of stubborn pride. Being above death is the greatest thing of them all, for nothing is more frightening or death defying than it.

Both of these groups of people are fools.

VOTE: Snicket

We are finally reunited, Beatrice.