Interesting - that was another of **OAOW’s ** traits. He shared it with sachertorte.
Hal, what search engine do you use that brings back candy as a dominant result?
Typing it into google you get this back. FOS Hal for trying to lead us down a dead-end candy path. Surely you have read the dossiers.
“It’s either you or me, and I’m not giving up my chance to try gebackenes before I die.”
“I’ve eaten grilled cow udder more than once”
On second thought this doesn’t quite line up. If you have eaten it before why would you need a chance try it in the future?
Put it in Yahoo and every top hit is about candy, sweets and the like.
Surely I have read the dossiers – but if a result on cow udders doesn’t come back, are you expecting an intuitive leap between candy and cow udders? If so, I’d hate to have seen what Halloween was like around your neighborhood…
That out of the way, yes, the cow udders clue is clearly the better option. One thing about it, though – Ah, never mind – I see Hawkeyeop already brought it up. Odd thing for someone who has already eaten it to say, isn’t it?
Who uses Yahoo anymore? 
OK, un-FOS you Hal.
Well, I can see how that makes me a suspect. Sure, lynching me would prove that I appeared to have no unique traits - meaning that some of my traites were borrowed by scum - and I’m innocent. Or, it would mean that I actually had no unique traits and I’m innocent. Useful? No. We would have one less associate and the scum would have one step closer to victory.
As a rebuttal theory, let’s say that Pleonast is scum. He could have made up his entire dossier. He could have stolen the ‘moths’ one from me, since it was public. If he hadn’t done that, I would have one unique trait and no one would have any reason to suspect me.
If I were a silent pig, I’m quite sure that if I were to make up any traits, I would make up all of them. I knew were the traits came from, I would have just stolen all traits from there. Since I posted a trait that was unique at the time - that was later confirmed as a trait shared by someone later - I think it’s safe to say that at least one of my traits (two if you count the public one) is really one that was assigned to me. Since I didn’t make up that one, it’s a safe bet that I didn’t make up the other ones either.
Of course, if you believe me to be scum, this logic is probably not too convincing.
I was thinking about this post during the night period. I was flat out accused of being scum, and night fell before I had a chance to refute it. I had been bugging me, so when day broke, I wrote out my response.
Too well thought out? Well I did have a couple of days to think about it.
Defensive? I was accused of being scum. I did defend myself. I’m not sure how I’m supposed to refute accusations without being defensive.
In retrospect, I wish I hadn’t. There’s a good chance that the accusations toward me would have just been forgotten if I hadn’t brought them up.
I agree that the clue points to “I’ve eaten grilled cow udder more than once.”
I am the only living player with that item on my dossier. As I stated before, I don’t trust private data. Now I (obviously) outright reject it.
I also find it odd that three traits have been revealed and all three have been on OAOW’s dossier.
I’d much rather lynch someone based on reasons other than dossiers (again obviously). I’ll try and make a case, but there isn’t really much to go on. My top suspects were zuma and faithfool so I’ll take a look at them.
I think all that clue does is rule you out as a suspect. It implies that the killer has not eaten cow udder.
I hadn’t thought about it that way. I thought that each night the deceased would be given one of the killer’s attributes, not some sort of “exclude an attribute from the killer.”
Hey, I’m not in a position to argue. But I find the interpretation inconsistent with the game explanation.
My interpretation was that the killer has a false dossier and has eaten cow udder. Although, I see the point that the phrasing of ShadowFacts’s implies the opposite.
Rest in peace, Shadow… for what it’s worth, breakfast was delicious!
Based on my understanding of the game rules (less whatever bastardly modding may be going on), the dead get a randomly selected item on their killer’s dossier. Perhaps Shadow misread the dossier point before posting. Then again, the annibalism itself might be a clue: HockeyMonkey’s in favor of human corpse consumption, right?
Yeah, I’m not really convinced by my own line of thinking, either. I just thought I’d throw it out there before my perfunctory:
**
vote:faithfool
**
For the same reasons outlined on Day One.
Ewwww, cannibalism!
Does anyone have a link to everyone’s dossiers as they reported it? I’m having troubles f ind ing it…
HERE’s the one I did.
I’m not totally sure either…in fact, it’s hard to say either way. I’m kind of leaning towards faithfool not for dossier reasons but for general weirdness and vibe reasons. (Yeah, emotion over logic!) But I am not totally convinced of that either.
Well, it was one of OAOW’s claimed traits. We know he didn’t lie about the 7-11 one (I wonder why?), but he may have lied about some or all of his others.
Well, for that matter, so could sacher or anyone else have lied. Unless there were some more undelivered dossiers, we’re in the dark here, no?
“You all head to the mess hall to find that a tempting meal of bacon and eggs has been laid out for you, along with what looks to be a corn beef hash. It tases a little funny, more like pork then beef.”
I think this means we ate gebackenes for breakfast. I haven’t been able to make more sense out it then that though.
You have 8 traits listed for shadowfacts on that chart.
**
ShadowFacts** never actually bowled two 300 games, nor did he think the cruelty make foie gras tastier, according to my list.
Thanks. I’ve updated.
zuma
My suspicions centered around what I see as passive-aggressive play regarding the revealing of dossiers. While I have a different point of view on the utility of dossiers, I can see a Townie taking a passive-aggressive stance on dossiers just as well as scum. Additional concerns arose regarding his ignoring of his own reveal order, but again, I can see a pro-dossier Townie doing the same thing. I don’t particularly like it, but at this point I don’t think its a lynchable offense.
faithfool
Initial suspicion centered around the nighttime ‘slip.’ Further discussion clarified that NAF sent PMs and whatever mtgman sent faithfool was not the role PM (unless NAF sent Town PMs and mtgman sent the scum PMs). faithfool’s response plays the “I’m new” card strongly. Such a reaction is indicative of someone new and could be either scum or Town in my opinion.
Additional suspicion arose when faithfool self voted. A self vote makes no sense to a Townie. It makes little sense to scum, but slightly more since a scummy faithfool would be in the position to accidentally reveal her fellow scum. To me, this strikes me as the biggest offense by faithfool as I can see scum self-voting (odd, but plausible) but Town has absolutely no reason to do so.
I’d put my vote here, but in my re-read of Day One I noticed something that I let pass the first time around.
brewha
I was suspicious of brewha on Day One because he accused zuma (strongly) on Day One and as the facts came out, I noticed that Hockey Monkey’s dossier should have looked ‘wrong’ to brewha as well (for holding dossier items from the second source thread), but brewha only called out zuma. I asked brewha for clarification.
Anyway, re-reading Day One, I noticed an inconsistency with brewha’s story:
post 400:
brewha responds to my query regarding the different treatment towards Hockey Monkey and zuma:
post 596:
So in post 596 brewha explains that he didn’t FOS HockeyMonkey because he found HockeyMonkey’s trait in the other thread. In post 522 brewha exclaims his surprise at learning that there is another thread from where the traits came from. So in post 400, where brewha accuses zuma, he would not have known about the other thread. So why would he say that he found HockeyMonkey’s trait in the other thread when he didn’t know it existed?
I don’t like the inconsistency. brewha is lying.
vote brewha
I’ll support a faithfool lynch as well.
I’m not gunning for zuma at this time.