If we trust Hal and OAOW, that suggests that Cookies is PFK and McG is scum. Cookies is probably the priority in that case.
Cookies, care to share anything with the rest of the class?
I can go with trusting the Masons. What was Cookies’ claim again?
vote Cookies
Remember, we need to make sure Natlaw gets #2.
NETA: Just looked it up, Cookies claimed Vanilla.
Time to die, liar.
Gaaa, I knewitknewitknewitknewitknewit, but I didn’t open my mouth because it was all based on…well, baseless hunches. But the last two Days, everything that Cookies posted just reeked of…hell, I don’t even know what to call it. Playing a perfect line of trying to be just helpful enough or something. Either way, I knewitknewitknewit!
vote CTTDSWHCookies
unvote OneandOnlyWanderers
vote CometotheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
Yep.
Vote Cookies
The extra Talisman from being runner-up for lynch was a one-per-game type of deal (see my PM).
For the record I protected both Stanislaus and Normal Phase last Night - the latter successfully from MrsMcGinty if Wanderers is to be believed! 
Oh, I believe the Masons. Cookies’ claim was vanilla. But a number of you have said that Lynch All Liars is a bad policy. So I’ll at least let Cookies speak before voting for her.
I’m wondering about brewha and One And Only Wanderers. Why would brewha block a vanilla player? It’s funny, isn’t it, how little he’s actually managed to block? Chose not to act Night 1, blocked OAOW Night 2, Night 3 canceled, Night 4 didn’t get his vote in on time, and now Night 5 he blocks vanilla? He made a big deal of proving his blocking ability last Night, then chooses a target who can neither confirm nor deny? Admittedly, I wasn’t wild about the idea of his blocking OAOW, because I thought OAOW was a Town Power playing his own strategy (I didn’t believe that holding off on Tom was as scummy as some of you did, largely because of Nanook in LotR), but now I’m beginning to wonder.
OAOW says that Mrs McGinty attempted an aggressive act last night on Normal Phase. What if he was the one who attempted an aggressive act on Normal Phase last night? I’m guessing Normal was protected; that’s certainly the reason I protected Natlaw. If brewha has at least a one shot block, he could have used it on McGinty last Night. OAOW accuses McGinty; McGinty claims to have been Blocked. This bit is important, because otherwise there might be some inconvenient action that McGinty takes and talks about out there to support a McGinty alibi.
I know, it’s a crazy theory, and “it could have been” doesn’t equal “it did.” But I wanted to point out that we only have OAOW’s word for brewha’s blocking, and no confirmation at all on OAOW’s supposed Zoom on McGinty.
But if we lynch Mrs. McGinty and he turns up town, we would just lynch OAOW. That seems like a big risk for someone with suspicion on them already.
But OaOW claimed McGinty’s action before brewha revealed who he blocked which could have caught OaOW lying.
I think you’ve answered your own question. Unless you know more than I do, Texcat only claimed Vanilla.
Natlaw, I’m assuming in my scenario that both brewha and OAOW are Scum together.
lilflower, I’m not an experienced player, but at this point, sinking what may be the most formidable Town player (i.e. McGinty) and surviving another Night to dance my feet off toMorrow might be good enough for me if I were Scum.
Look, I came into the thread this morning believing that OAOW was Town, and hoping to talk those people who’d been suspicious of him yesterDay out of it. But, as I reviewed yesterDay, my mind kept coming up with “yeah-buts,” that is, possible ways that OAOW might be Scum. He’s been enormously helpful to us in that he caught Tom, and I’ve been rather suspicious of Mrs McGinty since peeker went down. I found Mrs McGinty’s claim to be suspect as well, and thought that killing off OAOW, who looks to be incredibly powerful, was insane.
But, I’m bad at this, and I know I’m bad at this. So I’ve been trying to think about how I could be wrong whenever I suspect something. Thus I came up with a possible way that OAOW could be Scum and put it out there. It’s not likely, but it’s possible that OAOW and brewha are in collusion, and are lying. If you don’t like the possibility, don’t vote for it. I’m not voting for it, but I’m also not ready to execute Mrs McGinty on OAOW’s word alone either.
brewha, you made a real point of how you were going to prove your claim last Night. Sure, texcat might have been (or still might be) a false claim, but blocking her proved absolutely nothing about yourself.
That being said, I’ve been wondering why there were no deaths last Night, and your block of texcat, if it actually happened, could be an explanation. I told natlaw to protect Normal and Stanislaus last Night quite openly, and he did. They were the logical people to be protected. If OAOW is telling the truth, one bad guy attacked Normal anyway, but would both? (I’m assuming that both Scum and 3rd party had a Night Kill available) Wouldn’t someone have attacked OAOW or natlaw (which would have killed me) or McGinty (of course, Ash might be unkillable until something else happens, as he was in Evil Dead 1)? If brewha really did block texcat, then we need to look at texcat as a possible killer who was blocked last Night.
don’t forget someone else confirmed my investigative targeting of Natlaw.
Well, this is the dope, so … CITE?
I did ask if there was a way I could prove myself. I did ask if anyone - Masons especially - wanted to give me a specific target to block. I got suggestions. I got nothing specific. I ended up blocking who I thought was most scummy and most “under the radar”. I’d like to see you point out how I made a real point of how I was going to prove my claim last Night.
Bottom line is - no one died. Every pro town power role (as far as I know at this point) succeeded in their powers last Night. If I were a scum roleblocker (which let me remind you we already have a dead one) why wouldn’t I have blocked a town power role?
If you think I have a one shot block power, I could block you tonight just to prove my point - though I don’t think that’s in the town’s best interest.
Someone else – being Oy herself, right?
Stanislaus, can you put your whole list here again in one place?
Eesh, that’s the second time I got distracted by Oy!'s smudges and forgot what I was doing.
Vote Cometothedarksidewehavecookies
Yes, I saw OAOW investigate Natlaw. It proves investigative power, not alignment.
Yes, I smudged you, brewha, along with a bunch of other people. I wanted to put out possible ideas. That being said, I think the most obvious line of reasoning is usually going to be right. So, if I had to vote this minute on the people I find most likely to be non-town, it would be ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, Mrs McGinty, and texcat, in that order. But I said I’d wait to let Cookies speak before I vote, and so I will.
Vote: Cookies
This one seems clear-cut. The masons have confirmed that Cookies killed Omi, and thus lied about being vanilla. (And I am in the lynch all liars camp.) I do wonder what Cookies did last night. We don’t have any indication of that do we?
No I have nothing to say. 