2010-08-30, 01:03 AM
y0y0y0y0shi0 Wrote:It's Day 1. There's barely anything to go on. Lynching based on people's interpretations to clues isn't going to do us much. Maybe, oh, I don't know, we could lynch based upon someone's reactions? Condescending tones do nothing as well.
Oh, and by the way, Silencer is usually Scum. Just putting that out there.
You guys are all looking at this clue from one angle with barely any attempts to see it from a different perspective.
I noted that what I had was a theory. And not a fully filled out one for that matter. I'm willing and open to hear other intepretations to the clue. I read all of TobiasBlack's response, and formulated my own reply to his. I know that it's quite possible my interpretation is wrong, as I have stated that several times, but there is a clear lack of other logical intepretations. You have to ask yourself with every clue, what is the other person thinking, and go from there. I proposed a few possible, and logical, ways to reach a conclusion based upon the clue. As the main point of the clue is to point out who killed CoB, that is the angle you have to look at it from. It's directing our focus to one individual, a mafia member. Yes, it may be an obscure or far out there stretch to name that person, but there is some reasoning behind it. At the moment, all the logical reason to me point to the people above CoB. I consider you the only one among them who is around 90% not the killer. The main reason being the silencing, which if anything like the last game, prevents you from doing a night action in addition to not being able to speak during the day. Now that is an implied assumption, so it could be wrong, but I think it's fairly safe to conclude you're not the killer because of it. That doesn't necessarily mean you're not mafia, but it does certainly mean that there are only two remaining people who could be the killer. Given the clues, either one has enough of a connection to be a suspect, but for the moment it appears to more heavily favor Synthesist based upon the theory I mentioned earlier. While there is a certain element of risk to all this deduction, it's a far better reasoning method than finding a name within a name. So again, not saying I have to be right, but I'm doing my best to apply logic to the clue and while I'm willing to look at other theories, I'd prefer them to be something a little more substantial than naming ones.