cfuw_shepherd ([personal profile] cfuw_shepherd) wrote2008-04-12 05:51 pm

Game 74: Psychiatrist's Office

[this is a small, cozy office with all the regular office trappings, a desk, a potted plant, and so on. one of those fancy long psychiatrist couches! oh, and of course, a coffeemaker with all the fixings]

Hello, gentlemen! ♥

[identity profile] u-jerk.livejournal.com 2008-04-17 01:41 am (UTC)(link)
Don't sound so surprised.

[identity profile] u-jerk.livejournal.com 2008-04-17 01:44 am (UTC)(link)
I know.

With their permission, I'd like to tell the shepherd we want to question Dereless tonight.

[identity profile] doctorquincy.livejournal.com 2008-04-17 01:46 am (UTC)(link)
. . . Wouldn't that be a little obvious?

[identity profile] u-jerk.livejournal.com 2008-04-17 01:58 am (UTC)(link)
Would it? I was thinking about the cards. If Euphie and Nameless (assuming they weren't ousted) have smudged cards and Dereless say they have one too...

But maybe no one would fall for that because if it was true the sheep would have too big an advantage.

[identity profile] doctorquincy.livejournal.com 2008-04-17 02:11 am (UTC)(link)
Wouldn't Dereless get a card like Faithless, though, without our names smudged? Because they'd pass, right?

. . . Because what are the odds of us getting four sheep teams, you mean?

[identity profile] u-jerk.livejournal.com 2008-04-17 02:16 am (UTC)(link)
They wouldn't pass or fail, they're wolves. They'd just get our card. But they could smudge the names out themselves.

Three sheep teams, if we want to make Faithless look like they'd been wolves. But actually I meant that getting extra clues at all would be an advantage.

[identity profile] u-jerk.livejournal.com 2008-04-17 02:55 am (UTC)(link)
... or we could do Shameless. They'd pass and just fuck up people's cards theories altogether.