AGOT Mafia XLIX - The Foundation of the Kingsguard

[Lady Gaga]

[quote name='House Mallister' post='1299260' date='Apr 3 2008, 11.42']You, because of misrepresenting [b]my[/b] thoughts and because of being perfect partner for Grandison.
Smallwood, because of overreaction about [b]my[/b] crappy analysis, which nobody else cared to comment.
Corbray, also because of misrepresenting [b]me[/b].
Everybody else, because [b]I[/b] have no reason to believe anybody of you.[/quote]

You do realize that people can make cases against you, criticize your reasoning, misunderstand or misinterpret your thoughts without being a FM, right?

Stop being so ego-centered and try to look at the bigger game instead of what's just about you.

[House Mooton]

[quote name='House Wythers' post='1299282' date='Apr 3 2008, 16.55']You do realize that people can make cases against you, criticize your reasoning, misunderstand or misinterpret your thoughts without being a FM, right?[/quote]Make cases, yes. Criticize, yes. Misunderstand, yes. Misinterpret, no. In fact, most powerful FMs weapon is misintepretation of other's posts.
Of course, it's hard to differ misunderstanding from misinterpretation. In general, misunderstanding person assumes being wrong after receiving explanations. Misinterpretating person just ignores explanations.

I can't always see when somebody misrepresent anybody other than me. I can't exactly know what others think. I know what I think, that's the difference.

But I think Smallwood overreaction is obvious fact, it has nothing to do with me doing the "case"... well, there was no case, just an attempt to cut suspect pool.

[House Tyrell]

It's lunch time. I'm going to do a quick reread...I saw a few points about the unlikelyhood of Grandison being the FM, that I thought were interesting.

I do want to look at Merryweather for possible interactions and see if I find anyone else suspicious

[House Tully]

[quote name='House Corbray' post='1299084' date='Apr 3 2008, 09.54']All right, here is my 'case' on Mallister, and sorry, but I can't quote. Fuckin' viruses.

Mallister started off shy. Most of their posts were one-liners. This is important to keep in mind, because Martyr can only protect upper half of the posters. So, a reason for him not to be NKed. Granted, WJ kill could disregard this, but I hate analysing NKs in the first place, and the second and more important thing is-those posts were early in the day, when NK couldn't have been decided on yet IMO.

He agreed with our current suspects, and added nothing there. Later, he placed his vote on a pretty useless place, because it seemed that no-one was willing to lynch Wythers. His reasons for suspecting Wythers are poor, he suspects him for being active.

At the beginning of day 2, he voted Grandison before any other suspect was brought forth, possibly trying to derail us from discussion and finding other suspects. He still seems to be suspicious of Wy, and raises some good points this time, but doesn't change his vote, since he wants to end the day ASAP. Plus, he made a case, he contributed, which should make him look good.

Gotta run.[/quote]

Since Mallister has already responded, I want to mention a couple of additional thoughts about your case:

most of your own day 1 posts were one sentence or not much more than that as well. Are you suggesting that Mallister was trying to pump up his post count to attract, or at least be in the range of protection of the martyr? That seems like an odd FM strategy, especially for Mallister who was only around for a total of about 3.5-4 hours total on day 1. There is no way he could expect to sustain his post count.

You added your vote when there were already 3 votes on Thorne and did not really make much of a case, yourself. Mallister engaged with Wythers over the re-read thing, and I think Mallister put the vote on Wythers because Wythers pushed back a little. Wythers being active was just a coincidence.

The overall case against Mallister seems kind of lame to me.

[House Tully]

[quote name='House Wythers' post='1299016' date='Apr 3 2008, 09.05'][b]Erenford[/b] never voted. He had only one post of substance that I recall where he pointed out the "defense" of Thorne.

But here is my concern, having never voted and hardly contributed, he would be a perfect NK. The fact that Erenford is still with us makes me very suspicious of him. Erenford, do you think Thorne was innocent or did we get a FM?

Smallwood: funny post. :lol: And nice symp clues too. Interesting that Fell and Florent made it on your list again.

Anyone ready to discuss how many FM we have? I'm thinking Piper and Week might enjoy filling the game with roles and setting 3 FM and a symp against us.

Lastly, why are people convinced that Thorne was inno just b/c it was TGTBT? I'm not saying he isn't, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning.[/quote]

yeah, Erenford kind of slipped off the radar there. I'm not sure about the NK potential though. The FM could very well have decided to knock off one or two of the top posters first, maybe they were hoping to get lucky and catch WJ among the top posters, or maybe they did Alt-guess him. Seems like day 1 is the best time for the FM to take a shot like that.

My sense of the game setup is either 2 or 3 FM plus the symp. there is always the possibility of more than 1 symp, too. In any event, I would venture that we will not get much CF help from the mods unless we lose our secret finder.

I would like to hear more from Grandison and Erenford today, and Bar Emmon for that matter.

I am working on cases for Plumm and Smallwood who are higher on my list today, and I'll respond to your question when you post it.

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Tollett' post='1299328' date='Apr 3 2008, 11.23']Since Mallister has already responded, I want to mention a couple of additional thoughts about your case:

most of your own day 1 posts were one sentence or not much more than that as well. Are you suggesting that Mallister was trying to pump up his post count to attract, or at least be in the range of protection of the martyr? That seems like an odd FM strategy, especially for Mallister who was only around for a total of about 3.5-4 hours total on day 1. There is no way he could expect to sustain his post count.

You added your vote when there were already 3 votes on Thorne and did not really make much of a case, yourself. Mallister engaged with Wythers over the re-read thing, and I think Mallister put the vote on Wythers because Wythers pushed back a little. Wythers being active was just a coincidence.

The overall case against Mallister seems kind of lame to me.[/quote]
I had less posts than him. I wasn't even close to being one of the more active players.

FM strategies like that would work just fine, with the fear of Martyr, or even 'Martyr protected me' as a plausible response to 'why weren't I NKed?'

Also, the whole 'cutting down suspect list' for awkward reasons is suspicious. I forgot to mention it earlier.

[House Tyrell]

So looking to see if there were any suspicious interactions with Merryweather: The first thing I noticed was that his first 14 posts were all RP and joke votes. His first serious post is his vote is on Thorne.

-details his reasoning on Throne’s middle of the road post
-points out the Grandison post that several had already mentioned
-questions Smallwood about continuing to vote based on his FMFM joke theory
-questions Grandison again…this time about him removing his vote just because no agreed with him.
-questions Florent’s clueless/n00b persona

[quote name='House Merryweather' post='1297942' date='Apr 2 2008, 14.42']Okay there's one thing I don't quite understand about the Grandison case. If he wanted to vote for Thorne, why not just take the easy road and agree with the case against him? Why disagree with it and then come up with a weaker case that many people were likely to dismiss? Do you think he's just a bumbling FM who is out of his element? Or do you think he has some other reason for acting like that?

I actually do have a theory in mind for why he would do that, but I'm not going to say it right out. I want you or somebody else who is voting for Grandison to try to answer first.[/quote]

Plumm answered this question and then MerryJack replied:
[quote name='House Merryweather' post='1298031' date='Apr 2 2008, 15.32']Yeah, that is along the same lines as the explanation I was thinking of. Maybe he wanted to encourage the mob and help vote out Thorne, but didn't want to be seen as one of the people pushing the main case. At the same time, I still think it would have been easier for him to just go with the crowd in this situation.

I think Grandison is suspicious, and I hate how he removed his vote on Thorne earlier, so I wouldn't be sad to see him lynched. But I still suspect Thorne more.[/quote]

His reaction to the result on the lynch of Thorne:
[quote name='House Merryweather' post='1298418' date='Apr 2 2008, 19.21']That's pretty much the worst news you could have given us. Almost the same as an innocent result from the CF.[/quote]

-disagreed with first Mallister and then me on when and if to reveal.


Based on this assessment, there are 2 people I would look at: Grandison and Smallwood.

The other thing was his claiming TGTBT as an innocent. Reading the CF rules, when a person leaves the game, the guards pass a note to the CF, right then. This could have been a possible reason for his being targeted…not alt hunting, but possibly role hunting.

I already have the carry over suspicions of Grandison, so I would like to look at Smallwood next.

[House Connington]

[quote name='House Fell' post='1299351' date='Apr 3 2008, 12.43']Based on this assessment, there are 2 people I would look at: Grandison and Smallwood.

The other thing was his claiming TGTBT as an innocent. Reading the CF rules, when a person leaves the game, the guards pass a note to the CF, right then. This could have been a possible reason for his being targeted…not alt hunting, but possibly role hunting.

I already have the carry over suspicions of Grandison, so I would like to look at Smallwood next.[/quote]

Grandison is far too obvious. There is no point in killing WJ if they were afraid of him because of the Grandison connection as there were multiple people going after Grandison, especially with Thorne dead. If Grandison is the reason for his death, it's more likely that it was a set up than anything else.

It's possible they were role hunting or they just saw a strong player and killed him. I thought the same thing when I saw TGTBT get revealed.

Smallwood is interesting. There wasn't a whole lot of interest in him, but enough that it could have warranted a kill without too much backlash. He's definitely someone to take a peak at.

That all being said, the most likely reason for his death is he was active and strong. I would be careful about analyzing his death too closely.

[House Tyrell]

[quote name='House Connington' post='1299360' date='Apr 3 2008, 11.48']Grandison is far too obvious. There is no point in killing WJ if they were afraid of him because of the Grandison connection as there were multiple people going after Grandison, especially with Thorne dead. If Grandison is the reason for his death, it's more likely that it was a set up than anything else.

It's possible they were role hunting or they just saw a strong player and killed him. I thought the same thing when I saw TGTBT get revealed.

Smallwood is interesting. There wasn't a whole lot of interest in him, but enough that it could have warranted a kill without too much backlash. He's definitely someone to take a peak at.

That all being said, the most likely reason for his death is he was active and strong. I would be careful about analyzing his death too closely.[/quote]

All true, and while I agree about not giving too much time to his death, it shouldn't be ignored either (never know what will turn up)

[House Connington]

[quote name='House Fell' post='1299366' date='Apr 3 2008, 12.51']All true, and while I agree about not giving too much time to his death, it shouldn't be ignored either (never know what will turn up)[/quote]

Agreed. I'm glad it was done. My worry is always that night kills can be as misleading as helpful.

[House Mooton]

Forget about nightkill. Think about day staff. It's more productive.

[House Clegane]

[quote name='House Pommingham' post='1298896' date='Apr 3 2008, 13.32']What about them?[/quote]
Wasn't Mallister doing something quite similar? You seem suspicious of the people who wanted to lynch Florent late in the day, long after it was possible to get done. As in, they aren't contributing to a lynch. Wouldn't you say Mallister did the same by voting for Wythers?

Wythers asked me: Grandison - Please explain why you said "two masters." What compelled you to change from Mallister to Thorne?

Because two masters and a symp seems reasonable for a game of 15. I'm not too great on balance, but 3 masters and a symp seems a bit too strong. As for why switching vote: As I explained earlier, I hadn't entirely discarded the Thorne symp idea (though everyone seems to find it unlikely), and besides, lynch is better than no lynch.

[House Mooton]

[quote name='House Grandison' post='1299420' date='Apr 3 2008, 18.30']Wythers asked me: Grandison - Please explain why you said "two masters." What compelled you to change from Mallister to Thorne?

Because two masters and a symp seems reasonable for a game of 15. I'm not too great on balance, but 3 masters and a symp seems a bit too strong. As for why switching vote: As I explained earlier, I hadn't entirely discarded the Thorne symp idea (though everyone seems to find it unlikely), and besides, lynch is better than no lynch.[/quote]How kind it was for Wythers to ask you a question which you are able to answer so logically and reasonable!

[House Tully]

[u]Case on Plumm[/u]
[b]Post #49 [/b]– Joking comment
[b]Post #56 [/b]– Rotl emoticon only
[b]Post #134 [/b]– First substantive post. Doesn’t think much of case against Thorne, wants to put him off for now. Prefers the case against Grandison, but votes for Bar Emmon to pressure him to post. People do this, but it is kind of a lame no-vote at the same time.
[b]Post #184 [/b]– Comes out stronger in defense of Thorne:
[quote]It was not a subtle defense. It was a defense, plain and simple with no subtlety involved. I dont think you can rightfully lynch anyone on Day 1 for being indecisive in the first ten hours of the game. In fact I think the people that piggybacked onto Merryweather's vote were perhpas a bit overeager for a lynch.[/quote]
Voted Grandison, makes an okay case against Grandison. Some repeats of cases already made.
[b]Post #191 [/b]– responds to WJ with the obvious that Grandison doesn’t want to look like a piggybacker. Interestingly, I get the feeling that WJ was not satisfied with Plumm’s response. WJ’s response was kind of lukewarm.
[b]Post #207 [/b]– slightly condescending post towards me about having to do the best we can on day 1 Again, a really tight grasp of the obvious.
[b]Post #213 [/b]– Sticks with Grandison, willing to switch to Thorne just to get the lynch even though he apparently doesn’t agree with the suspicions of Thorne, also apparently willing to compromise on Florent or possibly Wythers. The compromise offer seems disingenuous to me because at that point in the game there was no momentum for lynching either of those players. Could have tossed those in there to seem agreeable.
[b]Post #218 [/b]– Explains his willingness to compromise on Florent has little to do with evidence and much to do with Florent having attracted a vote. Plumm pokes Wythers about Thorne, perhaps hoping to see Wythers compromise on Thorne.
[b]Post #229[/b] – Questions Grandison about re-voting Thorne. Grandison had said that he might re-vote Thorne if no one else “goodlooking” comes along. Eh, I can’t defend Grandison’s posts, votes, or wordchoice, but this re-vote comes much closer to the deadline. They both seem to believe strongly that a lynch is better than no lynch, and Thorne has the most votes at that point. Grandison re-votes at 19.44 and Plumm hammers at 20:04. So basically 20 minutes apart.
[b]Post #240 [/b]– Hammers Thorne to get the lynch nearly a full half-hour before the deadline, with several people posting and discussing still. Wythers was still prodding for information, and I was going to try to make it back before the deadline as well. As it turned out, I got back before the deadline, but too late for the lynch.
[b]Post #257 [/b]– neutral comment on potential roles
[b]Post #262 [/b]– neutral comment
[b]Post #287 [/b]– puts the 3rd vote on Grandison today. I don’t mind a little pressure, and this vote isn’t necessarily damning evidence, but we only need 7 to lynch, and we don’t know how many evil we are facing. It’s a little dangerous unless you are pretty certain.

[b]Summary[/b]: Not a lot of big contradictions going on here, but some. He hammers Thorne to get the lynch while apparently not believing in Thorne’s guilt, but rather to get the lynch. The timing was not good. He criticized Grandison for doing the same thing that Plumm did himself just 20 minutes later. There is also an under-the-radar quality to the pattern of posts.

I don’t know TGTBT’s play well enough to say that he was innocent, but a guilty Grandison would know. I can’t imagine that guilty Grandison would pile onto an innocent Thorne in such a blunderingly bad way. It’s more likely to be that guilty Grandison was symping to pull suspicion away from Thorne. Perhaps even more likely is that Grandison is innocent and the mistakes and contradictions were just errors. I’m not ready to absolve Grandison, yet, but I am looking at others today with more scrutiny.

[Lady Gaga]

[quote name='House Mallister' post='1299455' date='Apr 3 2008, 13.50']How kind it was for Wythers to ask you a question which you are able to answer so logically and reasonable![/quote]


The problem with this is that I was [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=27221&view=findpost&p=1297886"]the first player to call Grandison out for the "2 masters."[/url]

[Lady Gaga]

Erenford has 4 hours to avoid a modkill.

I like the beginnings of the case on Plumm. I have other suspicions of Plumm that are based on suspicions of another player, but I want to see some responses to my earlier questions before I'm more specific.

[House Tully]

[u]Case on Smallwood[/u]
[b]Post # 37 [/b]– Joke post
[b]Post #38 [/b]– reaction to mod
[b]Post #40 [/b]– impersonating Stokeworth
[b]Post #42 [/b]– back as Smallwood, joke post
[b]Post #45 [/b]– Stokeworth again, last joke post about this
[b]Post #47 [/b]– Joke post
[b]Post #50 [/b]– The famous FMFM joke post
[b]Post #53 [/b]– joke comment
[b]Post #55 [/b]– lewd smiley
[b]Post #59 [/b]– Basically another joke post with a joke vote on Merryweather
[b]Post # 80[/b] – joke comment on Piper/Week herd of lovechildren
[b]Post # 108[/b] – semi-joking post. Switches vote to Florent without making a case, references the FMFM thing again making it hard to know if he is buying the case on Florent or just egging on the joke.
[b]Post #168 [/b]– Reaction to Erenford who is expressing doubt in the case on Grandison because Grandison is acting in an obvious manner. Smallwood either doesn’t get, or doesn’t accept the possibility that Grandison is making a spectacle of himself to draw attention away from guilty Thorne. Can’t seem to remember why he voted for Florent. Then makes a jokey comment that Thorne and Grandison are indeed suspicious.
[b]Post #169 [/b]– Outlines the case against Florent as being a series of agreements. Kind of odd since Smallwood’s case reads like a series of agreements with Wythers. The whole Florent/Merryweather/Thorne exchange reads to me like players that aren’t quite sure if we are done joking yet.
[b]Post #170 [/b]– Decides that he will vote Thorne unless he can be convinced otherwise, even though he rejects the Thorne-as-Symp theory. Says he will wait 30 minutes before he has to leave and does not anticipate making it back before the deadline.
[b]Post # 175 [/b]– Responding to Wythers (who points out that Grandison’s vote is withdrawn from Thorne), Smallwood still prefers Grandison. Points out Grandison’s contradictions. Rejects the Grandison Symp theory.
[b]Post #176 [/b]– Votes Thorne, (at the 30 minute mark as he promised) and leaves with the warning that he will not likely return by the deadline
[b]Post #252 [/b]– Shows up right at the deadline, 20:28 (after lynch and mod announcement). Offers a meta-game comment:
[quote]I agree. :(

Well, actually, it's pretty much meaningless, but he's so wishy-washy when innocent...guh. I can't recall what evil TGTBT is like.[/quote]
[b]Post #269 [/b]– crying emoticon
[b]Post #270 [/b]– semi-joking link to Colbert Report threatdown list with player’s names: Fell, Grandison, Florent, Tollett
[b]Post #274 [/b]– Reacts to Mallister for his analysis of the votes on Thorne
[b]Post #276 [/b]– Semi-joking post, rejects Mallister’s vote analysis as unhelpful, threatens to vote Grandison later, then ends with a joke about staring intently at his suspects (also unhelpful).

[b]Summary[/b]: A lot of unhelpful joking comments. They are pretty funny, but they could also be inflating a post count, seeming helpful, but not doing a lot. He seems to endorse the idea that Grandison is suspicious, and threatens to vote for him, but never does. He puts the 4th vote on Thorne at that moment, but Grandison had just previously removed his vote. Meta-game comment: he’s innocent, well actually maybe he’s not, I don’t know. He criticizes Mallister’s vote analysis. I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from the vote analysis yet, but it is kind of standard operating procedure. For those that feel confident that TGTBT was likely innocent, it makes sense to look at who was on the train.

[House Corbray]

[quote name='House Wythers' post='1299016' date='Apr 3 2008, 06.05']Lastly, why are people convinced that Thorne was inno just b/c it was TGTBT? I'm not saying he isn't, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning.[/quote]

I honestly can't remember what he acts like when he's guilty, but the times I played against him when he's been innocent, he's been so cryptic and waffly that it was easy to mistake him for being evil. He's one of the only people that I consistently make the same mistake over and over again with, of lynching even though he's innocent. On the other hand, like I said, I can't remember if I know what evil TGTBT is like, so I'm not ruling out the possibility that he is evil.

I think WJ being the CF is highly unlikely. He wouldn't have been that obvious. I also think that if Thorne WAS guilty, the CF should come out and say that, because otherwise nearly everyone is operating on a mistaken assumption.



Mallister, the reason I didn't like your case last night is that you "narrowed it down" to 4 people, 1 of whom is me and one of whom is someone who I don't suspect at all (Wythers). You didn't qualify your case at all and provided no reasoning for your methods. I realize I'm throwing out lists of suspects with no reasoning at all, which is in some ways even worse, but it's more likely that someone is going to take your case seriously because it has an aura of logic around it--logic which is not, in fact, present. Second, I was arguing with you because you were there: 24 hours earlier, you posted saying you weren't going to say much because no one was around. Well, this time, I was around, and I wanted to engage you in conversation.


Wythers, that was my suspect list, for real this time. The edit that I made was to add Tollett to the list. What is it with you and symp clues, man? 1/4 of my original "FFMM" list has already been proven to be innocent. Do you really think that 1) the mods would have FM with coordinated names and 2) give them a symp whose name started with S....and then when that S alt didn't work, bring out Stokeworth to continue the theme? If (1) is true, it's by coincidence only that I named them.

More thoughts shortly.

[House Corbray]

[quote name='House Tollett' post='1299610' date='Apr 3 2008, 12.26'][u]Case on Smallwood[/u]
[b]Post # 108[/b] – semi-joking post. Switches vote to Florent without making a case, references the FMFM thing again making it hard to know if he is buying the case on Florent or just egging on the joke.
[b]Post #168 [/b]– Reaction to Erenford who is expressing doubt in the case on Grandison because Grandison is acting in an obvious manner. Smallwood either doesn’t get, or doesn’t accept the possibility that Grandison is making a spectacle of himself to draw attention away from guilty Thorne. Can’t seem to remember why he voted for Florent. Then makes a jokey comment that Thorne and Grandison are indeed suspicious.
[b]Post #169 [/b]– Outlines the case against Florent as being a series of agreements. Kind of odd since Smallwood’s case reads like a series of agreements with Wythers. The whole Florent/Merryweather/Thorne exchange reads to me like players that aren’t quite sure if we are done joking yet.
[b]Post #170 [/b]– Decides that he will vote Thorne unless he can be convinced otherwise, even though he rejects the Thorne-as-Symp theory. Says he will wait 30 minutes before he has to leave and does not anticipate making it back before the deadline.
[b]Post # 175 [/b]– Responding to Wythers (who points out that Grandison’s vote is withdrawn from Thorne), Smallwood still prefers Grandison. Points out Grandison’s contradictions. Rejects the Grandison Symp theory.
[b]Post #176 [/b]– Votes Thorne, (at the 30 minute mark as he promised) and leaves with the warning that he will not likely return by the deadline
[b]Post #252 [/b]– Shows up right at the deadline, 20:28 (after lynch and mod announcement). Offers a meta-game comment:

[b]Post #269 [/b]– crying emoticon
[b]Post #270 [/b]– semi-joking link to Colbert Report threatdown list with player’s names: Fell, Grandison, Florent, Tollett
[b]Post #274 [/b]– Reacts to Mallister for his analysis of the votes on Thorne
[b]Post #276 [/b]– Semi-joking post, rejects Mallister’s vote analysis as unhelpful, threatens to vote Grandison later, then ends with a joke about staring intently at his suspects (also unhelpful).

[b]Summary[/b]: A lot of unhelpful joking comments. They are pretty funny, but they could also be inflating a post count, seeming helpful, but not doing a lot. He seems to endorse the idea that Grandison is suspicious, and threatens to vote for him, but never does. He puts the 4th vote on Thorne at that moment, but Grandison had just previously removed his vote. Meta-game comment: he’s innocent, well actually maybe he’s not, I don’t know. He criticizes Mallister’s vote analysis. I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from the vote analysis yet, but it is kind of standard operating procedure. For those that feel confident that TGTBT was likely innocent, it makes sense to look at who was on the train.[/quote]

Ok, I really have to clear something up: I joked around a lot on Day 1, but in my quoted post above, everything I've said has meant to be serious. I actually [i]was[/i] trying to put pressure on you and the other people on my suspect list last night. I didn't want this to be Day 2: The Day Where We Do Nothing But Talk About Grandison, because that's a waste of time. I'm still fine with lynching Grandison--I disagree with the person who said he seemed too guilty to be guilty. That is copout reasoning. However, I didn't think that speedlynching Grandison was a wise course of action--for one, we could have a finder or a CF who wants to come out today with a surprise result, on Grandison or Thorne or someone else.

It's pretty clear that the second half of my day 1 posts are meant to be serious. Yes, I like to include humor in my posts, but that doesn't mean that they're all jokes.

[Lady Gaga]

[quote name='House Smallwood' post='1299655' date='Apr 3 2008, 15.55']Wythers, that was my suspect list, for real this time. The edit that I made was to add Tollett to the list.[/quote]

So as of D2 morning you suspect Fell, Florent, Tollett and Grandison. For real. I'm interested to know the basis for your suspicions of each, particularly Fell.

[quote]What is it with you and symp clues, man? 1/4 of my original "FFMM" list has already been proven to be innocent.[/quote]

And 1/2 of them are on your current suspect list, what does that prove? Nothing.

[quote]Do you really think that 1) the mods would have FM with coordinated names and 2) give them a symp whose name started with S....and then when that S alt didn't work, bring out Stokeworth to continue the theme? If (1) is true, it's by coincidence only that I named them.[/quote]

As I've said before, I don't buy FMFMS as a true naming of the FM by you. And if it is anything, it is a clue to them, not about them. That said, this post is giving me more confidence in you.