First one being that I'll be quite busy 'till next week, I mean the official RBIRL kind. So terrible timing and all, but that's that.

As for suspects, I've unfortunately been struck with confusion, not that I can't see who to lynch but all of a sudden I can see a lot of plausible targets and they can't all be correct.

So let's start off with Stephen. I don't believe in this evil philosophers thing, there's really no basis for that. This doesn't mean all philosophers are therefore innocent. Socrates was charged with and found guilty of impiety. Isaac is correct in suggesting that it is possible that those were trumped up charges to cover political misgivings regarding Socrates. On the other hand, we know of the trial mostly through the works of Plato, Socrates' pupil and a most definitively biased source. In the end, though we do not know whether the charges were true or not, we do know that he was charged with defying the gods, and found guilty of it, and that's more than we can say for most other topics.

Which brings me to Isaac. Not long ago, Isaac was claiming that this day had gone on for too long and that it needed to end. But once his candidate vanished so did his urgency. That's not really much of an accusation, I know all too well that losing your prime target can be disorienting. Still, it bears remembering that Isaac was also part of the lynching crowd for yesterDay's waste of a lynch, though it would also be true to say that he voted before the modkill issue really came about. Then again, neither did he then unvote. It seems suspicious to me that he supported the lynching of two people, not because they were likely to be scum, but because they were harming the game. While disposing of players who hinder the game is a laudable effort, it certainly does not bring us closer to outing the mafia, and I cannot help but be reminded of that superhero game where he successively went on a Serial Killer hunt on Day 1 and suggested a no-lynch on Day 2. Anyway, as to the actual point, I find it suspicious that he refuses to entertain the possibility of Stephen's guilt. True, the accusation does not reside on the most solid of foundations, but could we say that any of the other people he's accused - Scott, beetnemesis, ? - had particularly damning evidence arrayed against them. I am wary of accusing Isaac of such a gauche scum tell, but then again isn't that the very reason it would be so easy for him to defend it with WIFOM?

Then there's beetnemesis and ?. I agree with much of Isaac's reasoning as to the reasons we should be suspicious of them. And beetnemesis' alleged role really frustrates me.

Anyway, my preference would go to voting for Stephen. Alternatively, I could be persuaded to vote for ?.

I don't think we should vote for Isaac or beetnemesis. My suspicions on Isaac reside in large part on suspicions of collusion with Stephen, so either I am wrong and there is no collusion, or I am correct and they're both guilty so we could as easily go for either one. Seems ridiculous to me to go for the less suspicious of the two, if Stephen turns out to be scum, then we should turn our eyes to Isaac. And if he doesn't, well, he stays alive for now.

As for beetnemesis, I just really, really don't want to take the risk that we're wrong and that his role is actually what he says it is. With our doc and cop neutralised, that would be a very painful thing for us to endure.