Scioly.org

I have to let that accusation count because there was no rule against it, but really?

Rule 14 wrote:If a protection is deemed to be without true reason (ie, "I don't want to die", "they're valuable") by the Assassinator, the protection will NOT count. The protecting officer will have the chance to protect again.

Assassinations Past wrote:I have to let that accusation count because there was no rule against it, but really?

Rule 14 wrote:If a protection is deemed to be without true reason (ie, "I don't want to die", "they're valuble") by the Assassinator, the protection will NOT count. The protecting officer will have the chance to protect again.

Not exactly in keeping with the assassinations past theme are we? In the old days people protected all the time just for the heck of it

Anyway, thanks winner. This assassinator seems to be very prompt....

Preliminary Suspects List: (in no real order...)
winneratlife (lack of posting...maybe trying to keep out of the way so people would be suspicious...)
ichaelm (noting but a hunch...)
zyzzyva98 (I think we can all guess why...)
paradox21 (I think brobo might think he could be a bit of a genius and pick dox again since he just won....of course I'm not sure dox would want to do it this close together)
quizbowl (randomly jumped in after being gone for a while....though this is likely due to the season starting up again and him coming back)
robodude (no real reason....just a name I'd think about)
and I would have been suspicious of paeleonaps but...he's dead so...


Stupid one accusations....I really want to accuse one of the above (which by the way is an advantage for the assasinator...longer game since no one will accuse and there is a chance that people won't ever get up to the 3 they're supposed to have.....of course it does give incentives to solve the clues....might be a good idea to figure out some sort of middle ground)

fmtiger124 wrote:

Assassinations Past wrote:I have to let that accusation count because there was no rule against it, but really?

Rule 14 wrote:If a protection is deemed to be without true reason (ie, "I don't want to die", "they're valuble") by the Assassinator, the protection will NOT count. The protecting officer will have the chance to protect again.

Not exactly in keeping with the assassinations past theme are we? In the old days people protected all the time just for the heck of it

Anyway, thanks winner. This assassinator seems to be very prompt....

Preliminary Suspects List: (in no real order...)
winneratlife (lack of posting...maybe trying to keep out of the way so people would be suspicious...)
ichaelm (noting but a hunch...)
zyzzyva98 (I think we can all guess why...)
paradox21 (I think brobo might think he could be a bit of a genius and pick dox again since he just won....of course I'm not sure dox would want to do it this close together)
quizbowl (randomly jumped in after being gone for a while....though this is likely due to the season starting up again and him coming back)
robodude (no real reason....just a name I'd think about)
and I would have been suspicious of paeleonaps but...he's dead so...


Stupid one accusations....I really want to accuse one of the above (which by the way is an advantage for the assasinator...longer game since no one will accuse and there is a chance that people won't ever get up to the 3 they're supposed to have.....of course it does give incentives to solve the clues....might be a good idea to figure out some sort of middle ground)

Something is really fishy here...

thanks for making that point. the top of my suspect list is zyzzyva (no offense); he just strikes me as desperately innocent.

Desperately innocent?

Alright, I don't expect us to make much more out of this clue. Therefore:

I protect myself because a paradox doesn't make sense. It also says 'Look here' in reference to not making sense. My avatar is a visual paradox (the legs don't connect to the body).

While I am flattered that FM would think that brobo would think that I am some kind of genius, I definitely do not plan on being Assassinator again (at least for a long while ).

I will point out that while the early Assassinator clues were simple and vague like these clues are, there was less participation back then. These clues may be a stitch too vague considering the pool of potential targets we have nowadays.

zyzzyva98 wrote:Desperately innocent?

yes; its a play on Hannibal Lecter's quote from Silence of the Lambs (came out in '91)

Hannibal Lecter wrote:Clarice, doesn't this random scattering of sites seem desperately random - like the elaborations of a bad liar?

if you couldnt realize, im a huge movie buff.

Yeah, I tend to avoid movies for some odd reason. But the phrase "desperately innocent" seems to contradict your thinking I'm guilty.

if you read the rest of the quote; you'll see that im believing that you might be desperate, and lie.

I'm not that incredibly stupid that I'd pressure paleonaps not to protect himself if I was the assassinator.