The House of Origin [Concluded]

**Montmorency** · 10-20-2012, 01:18

I echo GH's

.

Morover, Tincow, what's striking to me is this: how did you find a 5th on N1? Was it Makrell? The partner of the other replacement?

**TinCow** · 10-20-2012, 01:24

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I echo GH's

.

Morover, Tincow, what's striking to me is this: how did you find a 5th on N1? Was it Makrell? The partner of the other replacement?

I didn't find a 5th on N1, that was on N2. On N1 there were supposed to be 4 of us, but my partner didn't submit orders so there were just 3. On N2 there were 5, as my partner showed up and we added another. The other person's partner had questionable activity levels and it wasn't felt to be worthwhile to try and get them to show up. We didn't expect my partner to show up at all, so we expect it to be a group of 4 consisting of one intact pair and two solos. I asked 'khaan and he said that he would allow such a scenario to work properly as long as there was at least one intact pair. In the end, my partner did get orders in though, so we had two intact pairs, plus the fifth.

As for how I found the other people, that's a pretty silly question.

**Montmorency** · 10-20-2012, 01:28

Very good. However, you evaded the real question. Who were you working with? This can't proceed without names.

**TinCow** · 10-20-2012, 01:34

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Very good. However, you evaded the real question. Who were you working with? This can't proceed without names.

Two of my partners have already been confirmed in-thread. If that's not good enough for you, then just lynch me because I'm not going to give you the other names. Hell, I wouldn't even have given you the first two, but one of my partners is apparently very charitable.

**Riedquat** · 10-20-2012, 01:35

Originally Posted by TinCow

Two of my partners have already been confirmed in-thread. If that's not good enough for you, then just lynch me because I'm not going to give you the other names. Hell, I wouldn't even have given you the first two, but one of my partners is apparently very charitable.

**Montmorency** · 10-20-2012, 01:39

There are 4 scum, and 5 were in the group against Zack.

You have Bsmith killt by an SK or something, and Riedquat vouching for you. Unless the other two vouch, it is entirely possible that you and Riedquat are dissembling scum.

What reason would you give for refusing to name the others, eh? The purpose here is to clear half the town, not merely to satisfy my curiosity.

**Riedquat** · 10-20-2012, 01:44

Originally Posted by Montmorency

it is entirely possible that you and Riedquat are dissembling scum.

If that is the case I'm very bad at it....

**TinCow** · 10-20-2012, 02:05

Originally Posted by Montmorency

There are 4 scum, and 5 were in the group against Zack.

You have Bsmith killt by an SK or something, and Riedquat vouching for you. Unless the other two vouch, it is entirely possible that you and Riedquat are dissembling scum.

What reason would you give for refusing to name the others, eh? The purpose here is to clear half the town, not merely to satisfy my curiosity.

You've crossed the line from interrogating for lynch purposes to trying to gain names of active vigging townies. I specifically said that on N5 we had two full sets of two, plus a fifth, so the kill absolutely would have succeeded under the rules and there's no purpose at all for you to need to know the extra names. The questionable activity was on N1, with the group of 3, not N2, with the group of 5. You are fishing for information, and you are scummy.

Unvote; Vote: Monty

**White_eyes:D** · 10-20-2012, 02:12

What bothers me is that TinCow was protected by two people, how do we know that they weren't just lucky townies?

**Montmorency** · 10-20-2012, 02:25

Originally Posted by TinCow

You've crossed the line from interrogating for lynch purposes to trying to gain names of active vigging townies. I specifically said that on N5 we had two full sets of two, plus a fifth, so the kill absolutely would have succeeded under the rules and there's no purpose at all for you to need to know the extra names. The questionable activity was on N1, with the group of 3, not N2, with the group of 5. You are fishing for information, and you are scummy.

Unvote; Vote: Monty

Yes, I'm fishing for information. That the point!

I'll walk you through it: if 5 players vig, and 4 are scum, and the 5 players reveal and vouch for each other, then they are guaranteed to be non-scum at this stage. If only four vouch, then there is a risk that the whole scum-team has gone in. Do you understand my point? With my tetrarchy, Arjos was likely killed by the same pair which killed Atheotes: that is, scum. So the four scum couldn't be our number.

Do you get it?

Trying to get mass-revealers lynched because they want more transparency is highly suspect behavior, Tincow. Additionally, it can not be forgotten that BSmith was apparently killed by a 3rd-party type.

I strongly recommend that Tincow's partner vouch for him. As it stands, Tincow + Riedquat+ Whiteyes might be the Mafia group.

That's all - your partner need only reveal, and the chain will be complete. What makes you so afeared of the request?

What bothers me is that TinCow was protected by two people, how do we know that they weren't just lucky townies?

Yes, that's why I'd like them to reveal as well. Scum would have no incentive to go around protecting townies.

**Jarema** · 10-20-2012, 07:41

Montmorency, I think that participating in attack groups last night does not clear anyone.
Scum may sent orders together with other players. We do not know how many scum is out there. I am afraid it would be too easy if we could take innocence of our partner for granted

**LazyMcCrow** · 10-20-2012, 08:41

Originally Posted by TinCow

You've crossed the line from interrogating for lynch purposes to trying to gain names of active vigging townies. I specifically said that on N5 we had two full sets of two, plus a fifth, so the kill absolutely would have succeeded under the rules and there's no purpose at all for you to need to know the extra names. The questionable activity was on N1, with the group of 3, not N2, with the group of 5. You are fishing for information, and you are scummy.

Unvote; Vote: Monty

I agree. In the write-up it says that TinCow was some doddery old scholar - albeit apparently a vengeful vigilante one. Something quite zesty and zealous about Monty's interrogation.

vote: Montmorency

**White_eyes:D** · 10-20-2012, 01:42

It was suppose to be six in total but we ran out of time to include someone with TinCow and Co.(Up to them on whether they want to come forward or not)