The Assassins' Guild: Michaelmas 2005 Amusing E-mails

The Umpire thought that the following e-mails were sufficiently amusing to merit publication after the game:

Date: 08 Oct 2005 19:48:02 +0100
From: Ed H <>
Subject: signup to the break of dawn

* Ed Heaney.
* Christ's College
* eah36 AT IN the INTERNET.
* Christ's 4/28.
* No water. There is too much expensive crap across the floor.
* The Chorus Of Frogs
* I'm an ASNAC... really...
* Terminal internet addiction.

Maz: FOR THE LOVE OF THE GODS do not let Tom Booth make ANY SORT of pun on
my name. I know he is going to. AbF and Lauren might too. Don't let them.

Ed H (Alchemist)

Date: 21 Oct 2005 10:44:41 +0100
From: C. Longworth <>
Subject: Re: The Assassins' Guild

Dear Mr Umpire,

Given that 'exciting' cards are now valid weapons... what is the umpires
decison on the use of 'exciting' email? i.e abusive emails full of HTML that
play nasty sounds and flash threatening animations... Bearing in mind that
the alert target has the ability to safely defuse these emails by simply
using software that wont run them automatically?


Date: 21 Oct 2005 15:53:01 +0100
From: S.M. Mccann <>
Subject: attempt(s) on target about 2pm Friday


I left a poison letter in Kathryn Hall's (Newnham) pigeonhole, it has all
the required faff written on it, the poison is GLITTER, and the letter was "
Volcano Insurance" written over and over again, followed by "I can't believe
he's actually signing it".

Also, i noticed everyone had a Christ's films flyer in their pigeonholes, so
i got one myself, poisoned it with Vic Vapour Rub, and put it in Kathryn's
p/hole, removing the original, so it didnt look suspicious.

Can i report this under by pseudonym, "But What if i Can?" (or whatever my
pseudonym is, i can't remember exactly)

How much competence do i get for this attempt?



Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance
Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance
Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance
Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance
Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance Volcano Insurance
Volcano Insurance

I can't bElieve he's actuAlly signing It OMG! I can't belIeve he'S actually
sigNing it !


Best Wishes,
Steve McCann

Date: 23 Oct 2005 21:10:59 +0100
From: S.M. Mccann <>
Subject: Report of receipt of crap and un-successful poison letter


I got a poison letter, it was shit, i wore gloves and cut it open with
scissors, they used talc, seriously, what kind of person goes after an MA
with a BPL, what a tard! (not seriously ridiculing him, unless that was a
serious attempt lol)

Can i report this under my real name :)


Dear Umpire,

Whilst your appointment as umpire has signalled in an era of good tidings, I
fear the peasantfolk of the assassins' guild are not improving as much. What
kind of person leaves a BPL for someone such as myself, who must practically
be considered royalty?


Stephen McCann, MA
Most Feared Assassin in Cambridge
(aside from Carrie Oliver, obviously)

Date: 25 Oct 2005 05:03:12 +0100
From: S.M. Mccann <>
Subject: Report of receipt of okish but still un-successful poison letter


got a poison letter, posted by second class, put in my pigeonhole my
porters, containing brown chocolate powder... thought powders couldnt go
through the mail, certainly white powders though it isnt specifically down
as white in the rules.

can i report this with my real name, Stephen Matthew Thomas McCann.



you suck


sorry if this report seems a bit derogatory, but actually posting things
puts you in no danger whatsoever, and gives competence, so it really is a
bit shit, isnt.

best wishes,

Date: 23 Oct 2005 19:49:27 +0100
From: A.W. Robison <>
Subject: Re: The Assassins' Guild

> > Oh, and I know you can't be biased like this at all or anything, but
> > please to not be having me inherit Richard Gibson from Philippa.
> > Ordinarily I'd have liked it to be able to kill him, but I have an NKA
> > with him I need to honour, and having him blocking up my targetting
> > would make me sad. Again, I know that you can't actually be biased like
> > this, but this is a good precursor for my misguided anger after it
> > inevitably happens =P.
> Name: Adam Baird Fraser
> College: Christ's College
> Address: Za11
> Water Weapons Status: No Water
> Notes: Likes women in uniform.

I bet you think you're hilarious.

Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:57:51 +0100
From: Paul Fox <>
Subject: Poisoned Letter


Because I have far too much work to do I dispatched a poisoned letter
full of deadly talcum powder to Thomas Fitch of Girton at 7:35pm on
Friday. I'll send report text later dependant on the outcome.

Is there any chance of you somehow conforming that I haven't placed any
of the bounties so far? Adam Biltcliffe is getting rather paranoid that
it's me as everyone else in the CL seems to have a box of raspberries on
their head.


Date: 01 Nov 2005 19:50:48 +0000
From: F.C.A. Boyce <>
To: M.M. Lester <>
Subject: Re: Lurk

"My big plan for this week came around the middle of the week. From an
anonymous source I learnt that Felicity was planning to stalk one of her
targets at Mill Lane. So from Thursday onwards I have waited patiently for
Felicity to reveal herself post-lectures. Sadly though there has been no
sign... It's not over yet though..."

Methinks someone's got hold of the wrong end of the stick slightly...

On Oct 30 2005, M.M. Lester wrote:

> Someone has reported a lurk on you.
> Do you want to use your real name?
> Maz.

An epic (with added line breaks):

Date: 22 Nov 2005 13:43:42 +0000
From: Adam Biltcliffe <>
To: M.P. Wallace <>
Subject: assassins

It's that time of the game when a well-placed betrayal could put you at
significant strategic advantage.

Just food for thought.


Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:06:04 -0000
From: Richard Gibson <>
To: 'Adam Biltcliffe' <>
Subject: RE: assassins

I'm pretty sure you've already earned Least Innocent Innocent - no need to
keep at it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Biltcliffe [] On Behalf Of Adam
Sent: 22 November 2005 13:44
To: M.P. Wallace
Subject: assassins

It's that time of the game when a well-placed betrayal could put you at 
significant strategic advantage.

Just food for thought.


Date: 22 Nov 2005 14:20:12 +0000
From: Adam Biltcliffe <>
To: Nick Plummer <>
Subject: Fwd: RE: assassins

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Thomas de Rivaz" <>
Subject: RE: assassins
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:58:49 +0000

All in good time
All in good time...

> From: Adam Biltcliffe <>
> To: "M.P. Wallace" <>
> Subject: assassins
> Date: 22 Nov 2005 13:43:42 +0000
> It's that time of the game when a well-placed betrayal could put you at
> significant strategic advantage.
> Just food for thought.
> adam

Date: 22 Nov 2005 16:24:12 +0000
From: Adam Biltcliffe <>
Subject: in case this is amusing

14:46 <adam> hi
14:46 <Revelation> 'afternoon
14:46 <adam> I gather we've reached the point in the game where I'm
             demonstrably not playing
14:46 <Revelation> heh
14:46 <Revelation> I think that's been obvious for quite a while
14:46 <adam> so, how long did I have you fooled on inco day?
14:47 <Revelation> I told you - when I got back I reported what had happened to
                   the mafia and then finished it off with "therefore I do
                   not think adam is playing this term"
14:48 <adam> no, you didn't tell me that
14:48 <Revelation> but you had me fooled up until the point where you started
                   trying to dissuade me from actually attacking the incos
14:49 <Revelation> did I not? Sorry - just flicking back through the logs
                   for it
14:49 <adam> you said that at some point that evening you decided I
             wasn't playing
14:49 <Revelation> [16:33] <adam> so, you've come to the conclusion that I'm
                   not playing?
14:49 <Revelation> [16:35] <Revelation> well I came to that conclusion at the
                   end of the incobash day
14:49 <Revelation> yeah - I suppose
14:50 <adam> was I trying to dissuade you from attacking
14:50 <adam> ?
14:50 <Revelation> definitely
14:50 <adam> I thought I was just trying to dissuade you from having *me*
             attack them
14:50 <Revelation> it kind of went against the whole spirit of
14:50 <adam> which would have been awkward, since I didn't have any kind of weapon :)
14:50 <adam> I would have been totally happy for you
             to attack them in any way shape or form
14:51 <Revelation> I assumed if you had one, it would have had to be very small
                   seeing as there weeren't any obvious bulges in the pocket ;)
14:51 <adam> but it was difficult to arrange a plan for this which didn't
             require me to do any kiling
14:51 <Revelation> yup
14:51 <adam> oh, I have a gun that would have fit in that pocket without bulging
14:51 <adam> I wasn't carrying it though :)
14:52 <Revelation> I did feel that you were persuading me against the plans
                   where I was going after the guy and you were watching my back
14:52 <adam> unfortunately, yes, I was
14:52 <Revelation> anyway - I think a Trinity vs. Caius match would be more
                   interesting at this point than a series of backstabs
14:52 <adam> I felt it would have been a violation of our no-kill agreement to
             put you in a position where you were expecting me to watch your
             back in the full knowledge that I had no ability to protect you at
14:53 <Revelation> oh well - you only caused me to hide for about an hour and a
                   half afterwards, so it can't have been too traumatic
14:54 <adam> if it hadn't been for the no-kill, I'd happily have sent you to
             scout upstairs and then stuck my head in and said "hey guys,
             there's an assassin upstairs looking for you"
14:55 <adam> but sadly you put me on the spot a bit :)
14:55 <Revelation> :D
14:56 <adam> hrrm, did I propose the no-set-ups clause, or did you?
14:57 <Revelation> I was under the impression that neither of us did, so I
                   think doing that would have been fair game....I think I said
                   no phoning people
15:01 <adam> hmm, I thought we agreed to the standard
             no-getting-each-other-killed arrangement. perhaps not

Date: 22 Nov 2005 16:12:24 +0000
From: Adam Biltcliffe <>
To: A.W. Robison <>, Nick Plummer <>
Subject: revelation talks

15:01 <adam> so who's next on the trinity hitlist? :)
15:02 <Revelation> it probably depends which one of us Nick manages to kill first
15:02 <adam> surely nick is nice and fluffy?
15:03 <adam> I'm sure he wouldn't kill any of you
15:04 <adam> also, aren't you allied with like everyone by this point?
15:05 <Revelation> Trinity aren't allied with TdR
15:05 <adam> ah
15:05 <adam> sucks to be him, then
15:05 <Revelation> Xanth says he doesn't have 5 no-kills, which suggests he has
                   actually broken his one off with TdR
15:05 <Revelation> Nick has said that he's breaking no-kills off with
                   Trinitarians as of tomorrow
15:06 <adam> ok, really sucks to be him
15:06 <adam> ooh, hrm
15:06 <Revelation> of course, this could be a ploy and he could just be
                   breaking off the no0kill with me
15:06 <adam> well, presumably you can cross-reference with sarah and raccoon?
15:07 <Revelation> well yes, but (a) Nick might Just be going after me out of
                   the 3 of us (b) it would be very helpful for them at the end
                   if one or more of {me, Nick} were to be disappeared now
15:08 * adam furrows brow
15:08 <adam> no, I can't work that one out
15:08 <adam> unless you're planning to team up with nick and xanth against the
             two of them
15:10 <Revelation> the game needs to shrink somehow, those 2 are probably the
                   easiest kills for TdR or similar, so someone else going is
                   to their advantage. Also, if Nick and/or I are in the duel,
                   popular opinion is that we will just run around shooting
                   everyone and cackling
15:13 <Revelation> basically, I suspect *everyone*
15:14 <adam> why are you particularly more likely to shoot everyone in the
             duel than nick?
15:14 <adam> um, sorry, you and nick more likely than everyone else
15:14 <Revelation> I don't know - I just said that that was their opinion
15:14 <adam> umm ok
15:16 <Revelation> what other information are you going to try and force out of
                   me today? :P
15:20 <adam> well, let's see, your targets aren't a useful secret any more
15:20 <adam> when's your next supervision?
15:20 <Revelation> ;)
15:21 <Revelation> bear in mind I said on IRC yesterday that I spent the
                   morning working
15:21 <adam> you expect me to believe stuff you say on irc?
15:22 <Revelation> I could give you a list of dates, times and places, expect
                   you to ignore all of them and then counterlurk the at the
                   times in the complement of that set
15:22 <Revelation> but that would be silly
15:23 <adam> oh no, if you told me something in pm, I'd believe you
15:23 <adam> because you know I'm very trustworthy
15:23 <Revelation> hmm
15:23 <Revelation> fine - that would cut down on the amount o counterlurking
                   I'd have to do
15:24 <Revelation> hnmm - how long is this game going to last, do you think?
15:25 <adam> depends whether people get on with it and kill each other or
             assume a duel is coming up and dig in
15:25 <adam> hint: do #1, it's more fun
15:26 <adam> but it's hard to predict without understanding the intricacies of
             the alliance system
15:26 <adam> who are you allied with, and what would have to happen before you
             dissolved any of those alliances?
15:27 <Revelation> as I've said, everyone apart from TdR and Nick from tomorrow
15:27 <adam> (like, you could probably trivially hit four by murdering sarah
             and michael, but I assume you'd want to at least let them kill tom
             first. and everyone else is likely to be in the same situation to
             a lesser or greater degree)
15:27 <Revelation> and a general understanding that prior notice would be nice
15:28 <adam> ok, so
15:28 <adam> assume that tom is gonna die in the next couple of days
15:28 <adam> then waht happens?
15:28 <Revelation> I doubt he will, really
15:28 <adam> ok, so what *will* happen?
15:28 <Revelation> I don't know
15:29 <adam> (this is still me responding to 'how long do you think this game
             will last', in case it's not obvious)
15:29 <Revelation> probably me dying in a really lame way next time I venture
                   out my door
15:29 <adam> ok, presumably from a personal point of view we don't count the
             scenarios where you die
15:30 <adam> since they're not interesting with regards to what happens to you
15:31 <adam> so, either trinity's plan to kill tom goes through
15:32 <adam> in which case, what happens? you go after nick, and then when he's
             dead break it off with xanth?
15:32 <adam> or, say michael and sarah die
15:32 <adam> where does that leave you?
15:32 <Revelation> that would be an almost ideal scenario
15:32 <Revelation> if Tom kills Michael and Sarah?
15:33 <Revelation> that would also leave me in a situation of going after Nick
                   and Tom
15:33 <adam> yeah
15:33 <adam> ok
15:34 <adam> what happens if it gets down to just you, sarah and michael?
15:34 <Revelation> then we will probably agree to make a 3-way split and go for
15:34 <adam> ok
15:34 <Revelation> although we'd probably ask to do it as a duel for convenience
15:34 <adam> so it sounds like the game isn't going to stagnate
15:35 <adam> what's your killing effectiveness been like this game against
             serious players?
15:35 <Revelation> well, I'm not sure when/from where the next death is going
                   to come
15:35 <Revelation> nil
15:35 <Revelation> in fact, the only person with a serious kill is Tom, who has
                   the second least kills
15:36 <adam> ok, hrrm
15:36 <Revelation> Xanth's new one of sitting in Mounsey's bedroom and Nick vs.
                   Felicity are kind fo second tier
15:36 <adam> what happened with nick and felicity?
15:37 <Revelation> she went after him for competence and then he went after her
                   at lectures, which was silly since she walked out the front
                   door to avoid lurkers around the back and Nick just went for
                   the gung-ho front door approach
15:37 <adam> basically, how long the game will last is inversely proportional
             to the product of anxiety-to-get-others-killed and
             willingness-to-do-something-about it
15:38 <adam> whoops
15:38 <Revelation> I think this was poor play on the part of Nick, since all he
                   had to do was wait 2 more days and then Sarah would have
                   gone inco due to lack of targets
15:38 <Revelation> and then a few more days for the police to find her
15:38 <adam> but surely this way he can just kill her?
15:40 <Revelation> well, he supposedly cancels the no-kill on wednesday, so yeah
15:40 <Revelation> also, Raccoon just sent your email to me :P
15:40 <adam> didn't *I* send my email to you?
15:41 <Revelation> yeah
15:41 <adam> I think you should kill raccoon. it's the only way to be safe
15:41 <Revelation> but it's always nice when allies send them back
15:41 <Revelation> rofl
15:41 <adam> don't mind me, I'm just making sure people don't forget the
             viability of betrayal
15:42 <adam> that, and trying to avoid the boring sort of endgame where
             everyone digs in and then dukes it out in a big duel at the end
15:42 <Revelation> yeah - that would be a little lame
15:42 <adam> so kill someone!
15:43 <Revelation> although a weak team of 3 against a strongish team of 3
                   might be a fun duel
15:43 <Revelation> but I suspect Maz will want a 4-/5-person thing
15:43 <adam> which is the weak team and which is the strong team ;)
15:43 * adam inserts a ?
15:43 <Revelation> Trinity is definitely the weak team :P
15:43 <adam> aww
15:44 <adam> purge the weakness! kill them!
15:44 <adam> tom can't be that hard to kill. *I've* done it
15:45 <Revelation> hmmm
15:45 <Revelation> I haven't considered him hard to kill, but I suspect he'll
                   be putting real effort in now
15:45 <Revelation> this game has been pretty lame in the way that none of the
                   people currently alive have actually had attempts on them
                   in the first 5 weeks
15:46 <Revelation> talking to Raccoon, then?
15:46 <adam> moral: alliance-heavy games suck. kill everyone, now
15:47 <Revelation> says someone who got to the end of an alliance-heavy game
                   himself ;)
15:47 <adam> yeah, and it was the lamest lame thing ever
15:47 <adam> I was going to play lent and do it properly with no allies, but I
             figured I should work
15:48 <Revelation> hmm
15:48 <adam> fortunately the winner of that game was one of the two people who
             did actually demonstrate some assassins skillz
15:49 <adam> (oh, I just told raccoon that you'd said you were going to
             backstab him. just so you know)
15:49 <Revelation> that's nice ;)
15:51 <Revelation> also, 4 of the people alive today have as many or more kills
                   than anyone in Lent, and Chris didn't exactly kill amazing
15:51 <Revelation> although I suppose he killed 3 people who placed top 10, so...
15:51 <adam> oh, this game has been good for kill counts
15:53 <adam> but anyway, as you said, it's lame that most of the alive people
             have had no attempts made on them
15:53 <adam> allying with everyone who might pose a threat to you is an old,
             and really quite dull. trick
15:54 <adam> also, it was damn annoying in the game I duelled, when I wanted to
             keep trying to kill everyone, but it would have screwed me over
             because then everyone would have been allied against me
15:54 <adam> much better to have everyone looking out for themselves in the
             final week or so
15:55 <Revelation> well, I was quite sane on allies this game compared to last
                   Lent - only 10 this time, I think...5 of whom made the last 8
15:56 <Revelation> Raccoon went for the 20-odd allies approach, i think
15:57 <adam> I like the philosophy of "don't ally with anyone you wouldn't want
             to share the duel with", personally
15:57 <Revelation> hmmm
15:57 <adam> apart from anything else, it highlights what a bad idea having ten
             allies is :)
15:58 <Revelation> I also quite like Bryony's (?) suggestion of kill agreements
15:58 <adam> is that the one where you share information but still kill each
15:58 <adam> I don't really see the value, except insofar as you consider
             information-trading to be a major advantage
15:59 <Revelation> share information but, where a target link exists, you both
                   go all-out to kille ach other
16:00 <adam> I dunno where this is much better than just not having a no-kill
16:00 <adam> except maybe that you can trust them until the boom falls
16:01 <Revelation> well it resolves any potential problems quickly

Date: 22 Nov 2005 16:35:47 +0000
From: Adam Biltcliffe <>
Subject: more stirring

15:45 -!- Irssi: Starting query in localhost with Raccoon
15:45 <Raccoon> betrayal's eh?
15:45 <adam> yeah
15:45 <Raccoon> what makes you think they're necessary?
15:45 <adam> basically, there's the option where everyone sticks tight to their
             alliances, digs in and then there's a big, random duel next week
15:45 <Raccoon> yep
15:46 <adam> or there's the one where everyone's willing to keep the game
             moving and there's loads of excitement ahnd intrigue
15:46 <Raccoon> heh
15:47 <adam> revelation just told me he was planning to kill you as soon as tom
             de rivaz is dead
15:48 <Raccoon> :o
15:50 <Raccoon> why would he do that?
15:50 <Raccoon> it's trinity vs. caius now
15:51 <adam> and you'll carry on believing that right until you feel the knife
             between your shoulderblades, I'm sure
15:53 <Raccoon> hmmm
15:54 <Raccoon> you're not the first person to suggest i backstab him, of course
15:54 <Raccoon> but where does sarah fit into this?
15:55 <adam> the easiest way would be to kill them both at the same time
15:56 <adam> if they're not expecting it, you can kill two people with an rbg
             before they have a chance to do anything about it
15:56 <adam> alternatively, get sarah in on it
15:56 <adam> it's more likely to work, but then you still have her left alive
             to potentially challenge you for the victory
15:58 <Raccoon> when's the duel likely to be though? what sort of timescale am
                i working on?
15:58 <adam> well, here's the thing
15:59 <adam> duels are a crapshoot
15:59 <adam> you can be the best assassin ever and still have no better than
             even odds of winning a duel with a couple of others
15:59 <Raccoon> yes
15:59 <Raccoon> but you might've noticed that I'm not the best assassin
15:59 <adam> if you want to win, what you have to do is kill everyone else
             *before* it comes to a duel
15:59 <adam> you're still alive
15:59 <adam> so you're winning :)
16:00 <Raccoon> meh
16:00 <adam> also, killing people isn't hard
16:01 <Raccoon> heh
16:01 <adam> I know people's paranoia makes it seem otherwise, but it's pretty
             rare that people die when making an attempt
16:01 <adam> in any given attack, the target is much more likely to die than
             the attacker
16:01 <Raccoon> depends at what stage of the game you are
16:01 <Raccoon> janet scott, for instance, really should have died when she
                attacked me a week ago
16:02 <adam> what happened there?
16:02 <Raccoon> i'm not utterly convinced she didn't, but that's a moot point
16:02 <Raccoon> she knocked on my door...
16:02 <adam> and then?
16:02 <Raccoon> i opened the door a little and fired a storm at her
16:02 <adam> ok
16:02 <Raccoon> her report claimed an RBG
16:02 <Raccoon> which would explain why she didn't notice anything
16:02 <adam> so if she'd had a gun pointing in through the door, she might well
             have killed you
16:03 <Raccoon> no
16:03 <Raccoon> she fired an rbg at me
16:03 <Raccoon> but I didn't stand in front of the gap
16:03 <adam> ok
16:03 <adam> and she did?
16:03 <Raccoon> yes
16:03 <adam> right
16:03 <Raccoon> and naturally missed
16:04 <adam> so, I'm assuming you're sufficiently clever to reject totally
             stupid plans
16:04 <adam> like knocking on people's door and then standing in front of them
16:05 <Raccoon> yes
16:05 <adam> but it's not hard to track someone down, find somewhere to hide
             and then follow them until you can kill them
16:05 <adam> you just have to have the guts to go through with it
16:06 <adam> so, I gather tom de rivaz is top of trinity's hit-list, right?
16:06 <adam> say you kill him
16:06 <Raccoon> unlikely
16:06 <adam> then, in the best case, you're left with you, sarah and rev
16:07 <adam> one chance in three, right?
16:07 <adam> alternatively, once tdr is dead, you kill rev and sarah
16:07 <Raccoon> you're saying that duels are completely random
16:07 <adam> then it's you, xanth and nick; still one in three, but you didn't
             have the additional risk of having to take out nick and xanth
16:08 <adam> given that you can kill sarah and rev at essentially no risk, if
             you do it right
16:08 <Raccoon> I'd be happy to make the duel
16:08 <Raccoon> all i have to do is survive my supervision tomorrow afternoon
16:08 <adam> duels are lame. I'd be really happy if the game ended without a
16:09 <Raccoon> making the duel is really the best I can achieve, i certainly
                don't deserve to win the game
16:09 <adam> if you kill everyone else, you deserved to win :)
16:09 <adam> if you're going to say you don't think you should win, may as well
             give up now
16:10 <Raccoon> ah
16:10 <Raccoon> but duels are fun
16:10 <adam> meh
16:10 <adam> well, if you're going to try to push the game towards lasting long
             enough to reach a duel, I guess I'll have to try to get you killed
16:10 <adam> :)
16:11 <Raccoon> heh
16:11 <Raccoon> so who else are you going to talk to? you've already done me
                and rev
16:11 <Raccoon> sarah's not on irc though...
16:11 <Raccoon> so that just leaves you xanth to work with
16:12 <adam> hmm
16:12 <adam> I could post a bounty on you :)
16:13 <Raccoon> there already is one
16:13 <Raccoon> at least
16:13 <adam> there are two on me :)
16:13 <Raccoon> you deserve it after your antics on the inco-bash :P
16:14 <adam> hey, revelation asked me if I wanted to make a no-kill and go kill
             incos with him
16:14 <adam> so I agreed
16:14 <adam> I didn't *lie*
16:17 <Raccoon> well no
16:18 <Raccoon> but if people lying was all that was wrong with the world...
16:21 <adam> I didn't even try to get him killed
16:23 <Raccoon> so it wasn't you who wrote a note on someone's door?
16:24 <adam> yes, but only after he'd left
16:24 <adam> if I'd been trying to get him killed, when he went upstairs I'd
             have gone into the corridor and told the people there there was an
             assassin upstairs looking for them
16:24 <Raccoon> you realise he went back...?
16:25 <adam> he went back and so did I
16:25 <adam> then I went back again
16:25 <adam> maybe he came back even later, but he'd said he was leaving
16:25 <adam> and of course I didn't believe he'd have lied to me
16:26 <adam> and the note didn't mention him. I was mainly thinking of the big
             incobash party
16:26 <Raccoon> heh
16:26 <Raccoon> well he got shot at anyway
16:26 <adam> ooh, really?
16:26 <adam> cool!
16:26 <adam> by whom?
16:27 <Raccoon> don't know
16:27 <Raccoon> he said he got to the door, read "there are assassins ...." and
16:27 <Raccoon> and got shot at on the way
16:27 <adam> I went back and talked to the other guys too, told them to be ready
16:27 <adam> maybe it was them
16:27 <adam> aww, shame it didn't work then
16:28 <Raccoon> heh
16:28 <Raccoon> yeah
16:28 <Raccoon> real shame
16:28 <adam> still, I figured just cause I wasn't playing didn't mean I
             couldn't do anything to make the game interesting

14:43 -!- Irssi: Starting query in localhost with brightlance
14:43 <adam> hi
14:43 -!- Brightlance is away: I am currently away from the computer.
16:09 <adam> so, michael wallace just claimed to have a supervision tomorrow
             afternoon to me
16:09 <adam> he might be lying, but it could be worth a shot

Date: 23 Nov 2005 09:36:42 +0000
From: Adam Biltcliffe <>
To: S.A.M. Donnelly <>
Cc: S.M. Mccann <>
Subject: Re: assassins

Oh, I have no particular wish to see any specific person dead. I'm just
hoping we can avoid the really boring sort of endgame where everyone goes
"oh, if we refrain from killing anyone for the next week we can have a
duel". Duels suck. I'm writing to encourage everyone to keep on with the
killing, and maybe for the first time since Lent 2003 we can have a game of
assassins with an ending that isn't pot luck.

(ps. Sarah -- I know betrayal seems unthinkable, but trust me, they'll get
you if you don't get them first. I've seen it happen so many times at this
stage of the game...)

On Nov 22 2005, S.A.M. Donnelly wrote:

> Hey, this is Steve McCann, taking the liberty of replying to this email as
> i see it over sarah's shoulder. :)
> Suggesting betrayal isn't a very nice thing, and since you CCed it to
> Michael i assume you wish to see either Revelation or Xanth dead. Remember
> the game is all about having fun and i think Sarah and Michael will be
> happy with the outcome no matter what happens. :)
> Best Wishes,
> The honourable Steve McCann

Date: 23 Nov 2005 11:41:34 +0000
From: Adam Biltcliffe <>
To: M.M. Lester <>
Subject: Re: assassins

On Nov 23 2005, M.M. Lester wrote:

> > > Hey, this is Steve McCann, taking the liberty of replying to this
> > > email as i see it over sarah's shoulder. :)
> > > 
> > > Suggesting betrayal isn't a very nice thing, and since you CCed it to
> > > Michael i assume you wish to see either Revelation or Xanth dead.
> > > Remember the game is all about having fun and i think Sarah and
> > > Michael will be happy with the outcome no matter what happens. :)
> Sounds to me like he's endorsing the back-stabbing of Sarah and Raccoon.

Good point. I think I'll alert revelation to the fact.


Date: 23 Nov 2005 11:47:10 +0000
From: Adam Biltcliffe <>
To: Richard Gibson <>
Subject: Fw: assassins

Steve sent this:

On Nov 22 2005, S.A.M. Donnelly wrote:

> Hey, this is Steve McCann, taking the liberty of replying to this email as
> i see it over sarah's shoulder. :)
> Remember the game is all about having fun and i think Sarah and Michael
> will be happy with the outcome no matter what happens. :)
> Best Wishes,
> The honourable Steve McCann

"Remember the game is all about having fun and i think Sarah and Michael
will be happy with the outcome no matter what happens."

The way I interpret that, I reckon he thinks it'd be ok for you to go ahead
with the plan of backstabbing Sarah and Raccoon, as long as you make sure
it's done in an exciting way. I recommend leading them to some obscure
location and then slipping away and having your allies hunt them down in the
dark, like in a horror movie. It's what assassins is all about.


Date: 23 Nov 2005 11:48:10 +0000
From: Adam Biltcliffe <>
To: M.P. Wallace <>
Subject: revelation

Thought I should cc you on that last one, just as a demonstration that the
threat is real :)


Home / Email
Valid XHTML 1.1