PAT Match 4

One option may be to request our super-alliance board, and Switza just stay quiet (the lead citizen would already know he's a criminal because he's not the lead, so that wouldn't seem suspect)... that way we're not saying we got info from anyone, and may be able to flush out an answer.

Another option (sorry) is that if we can figure out who the lead criminal is (ie: who the lead citizen doesn't know about), then we can just make sure they're never on the jury (that's probably a safer sabotage).

Also, we know Pete and I aren't the lead citizen. We can guess Duck isn't because why would he select a jury with 2 criminals? So it's Sam, Mets, or Jess. We're already down to 3 possibilities.

I think having the room with everyone or a room excluding me is a good idea.

I don't know how clever duck is. But for the very reason you just stated, it would be a great reason to pick 2 criminals as juror.

I asked for our old board back, exactly as is (Switza included). I don't expect much to come of it, but I want to see if anyone mentions Switza's silence and anyone's response.

As for Duck... I don't think so. He made the decision fast and, no offense to him, but I don't think it involved much planning. Sam and Mets might sacrifice that little pawn, but maybe not. I'm thinking if we can figure out who the citizen leader is, it might be a good to let the citizens win, then the criminals just need to guess the citizen leader (which, if it's set-up that way, you'll be able to).

One of you has to vote not guilty on this one. If only one person (Kathy-the criminal) does, it would potentially eliminate 3 people as lead criminal.

yeah, if no-one objects to the jury then I'll be voting not guilty. Have you decided on your choice of jury yet ?

I'm thinking me and Nat (already been on the jury, so not suspicious) + maybe Than, Pete and Sam???

That could result in 4 not guilty votes to really confuse the head citizen.

the thing is , the game will be over after only 3 rounds, which is perfect , less time for the head citizen to figure anything out. If you ask me , it may even be a better idea (if that jury manages to pass the approval stage) , that only one of us votes not guilty....no ? Have we worked out who the lead criminal is yet ? because if it's Nat , and as luck would have it Sam is the lead citizen, she would just have to pick between Me and Nat as the head criminal (she would already know the three others).

Adam, if you choose yourself, you might want to get whoever else you choose to vote Guilty (if you don't know who the criminal leader is). That way there's no indication of who the leader may be, since you'd already be known to the citizen leader (and we're sure of that).

If it's Nat and Sam (respectively), we're all entirely in their hands/whatever their play is here.

Jess will be the vote unless Kathy intervenes. Thinking she'll challenge Sam or Mets. You might try to talk to her too so one of them doesn't get to her first.

That last play may have made Pete a bit of a target, so if it doesn't look like it's gonna be Jess, try to stall it before a final decision (gives time to adapt).

If you post that it's looking like Jess will be the nominee in the bigger alliance thread, there might be more leverage for opening that up with Mets/Sam, and maybe what they say can be used on Jess. Unfortunately, the lack of PMs makes it a little difficult.

Just want to say that could not have gone any better. Nobody argued with Jess as nominee and she went for mets instead of either of you guys. I really had my doubts that criminals could avoid getting the leader discovered.

I admit, I was nervous when it became apparent Pete was a red herring. There are a couple "ah, fu..." posts in my confessional. But it's turned out fine, so... well played!