Scioly.org

Eh, Skink, I would hold off accusing...just a bit till we know more info

It's not as if I can make you use yours. Thing is, you can't stop me from using mine . Naturally, I only intend on using one for the duration and saving the other. Think of it like a freebie. A chance to throw a dart in a dark room...

Skink wrote:It's not as if I can make you use yours. Thing is, you can't stop me from using mine . Naturally, I only intend on using one for the duration and saving the other. Think of it like a freebie. A chance to throw a dart in a dark room...

...where you may later step on it. I suggest that you do be careful of how you work things out.

I walk by the police station to spy on the officers and hear an outburst. “We can't get a search warrant for a reason like “we like ice cream!” Another stunt like that and I'm kicking them off the force. How did they graduate from the police academy?”

I can’t believe I have to say this, but I’ll have to add an unwritten new rule: “Accusations must have some sort of intelligence in their reasoning.”

We’ve been doing this for a hundred games now. I had hoped for better.

How about we try this again? I’ll return all of your accusations to you free of charge. This is to your own benefit -- they wouldn’t have done much for you anyway.

That's poor. There's no point to having accusations if you can shoot down any reasoning you don't like. Pft. Well, I suppose I now see why we started with two right off the bat. And that's twice my question's been conveniently avoided. Thanks, folks.

@A Person and EFO-well, look at that. We're all still at two. I'll take a look at the clue tomorrow since we get three days. See what you accomplish in the meantime.

/me pulls out the pre-prepared buttered popcorn

accuse! accuse! accuse!

Assassinator wrote:
I can’t believe I have to say this, but I’ll have to add an unwritten new rule: “Accusations must have some sort of intelligence in their reasoning.”

We’ve been doing this for a hundred games now. I had hoped for better.

Meh, its been a rule, but only rarely enforced when the sassy is afraid of being accused early on, or at all. This sassy/sassies are either very nit-picky, or more likely at least one of the accusations was correct and the sassy doesn't want the game to end so early, and is thus demanding a valid reason in order to void the accusation.

I think HarryK may be right... regardless though, I think we need to solve the clue.

There are a ton of references to Z, but he can't be a target

I think the target's Paleonaps... I just need to find a reason why.
EDIT: REASONS!!!!
1. He is almost ALWAYS targeted first.
2. FLYING FLYING FLYING. Did I mention flying? (I fly is mentioned twice)
3. He has the most posts, other than EAST, who cannot be targeted. (I have the highest rate)

Are there any loss conditions? In other words, why do I care to solve this clue? To earn an accusation? I already have two. I don't need more (besides, accusations are useless far as I can tell). As it's written, there is no penalty for failure to make a correct protection after three days.