Ethan Dunn Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Ansel Michel said: Or you both could be town and barking up the wrong tree. What tree would I be barking up?
Liam Webb Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Ethan Dunn said: What tree would I be barking up? You guys mean flagpole! Hehehe. I think we should listen to the flag. No voting today. We don’t know anything!
Kendall Odell Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 11 hours ago, Ethan Dunn said: Now that you've unvoted your poke, are you still suspicious of Morgan? Your post said it seemed like he was trying to get people to gang up on me. Your statement could look like you're trying to get people to gang up on him. Put that together with your odd statement for voting but not lynching on day one and the whole post seems fishy to me. *bash* *bash* *bash* I am indeed still suspicious of Morgan. But I disagree with the conclusion you’ve drawn. I was just evaluating what Morgan had said. Food for thought if you will. Where as Morgn’s post seemed more of an instant attack. I also voted for someone after what I’d said. Morgan didn’t. I never said to vote and not Lynch. I’ve said it before that I want a lynch. I don’t know whether I’m suspicious of Morgan enough to the point where we should lynch him. And Paul is correct. Louis, William and Zachary have still yet to be heard. But I’m going to stand by my guns and say we need a lynch. Trying to call out an inactive player won’t do much at this stage so Vote: Morgan Marchand *bash* *bash* *bash*
Zachary Mercier Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Good morning boys! It is as I suspected and very hard to keep up with all of the arguing with my little pocket porthole. There have been some good points made about a few folks, but having looked back at everything up to this point, the most triggering to me is Morgan's quick jump to calling someone scummy for what the rest of us seem to clearly see as a joke. I haven't even seen a clear defense about this either, waiting for your buddies to help you reword your defence maybe? Vote: Morgan Marchand
Louis Townsend Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 12 hours ago, Liam Webb said: Do you guys hear our flag?? It’s whispering to me! it said “Protect... me... Don’t... vote... yet... it... is... foolish...” 9 hours ago, Liam Webb said: You guys mean flagpole! Hehehe. I think we should listen to the flag. No voting today. We don’t know anything! Lot’s been said in the last hours; these stick out the most to me. Liam, care to elaborate on the reason why we should not vote for the person we find most scummy!?
Ansel Michel Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 11 hours ago, Ethan Dunn said: What tree would I be barking up? Turn of phrase. 9 hours ago, Liam Webb said: You guys mean flagpole! Hehehe. I think we should listen to the flag. No voting today. We don’t know anything! Sure, flagpole, little one. But all you've been doing is talking about our lovely flag. Yes, it is a beautiful one, but do you have anything else to contribute? And we all should vote today, even if the rules don't say it's mandatory. Then we can analyze discussions tomorrow. Vote: Liam Webb For being fairly unhelpful so far.
Reginald Aston Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Ansel Michel said: But all you've been doing is talking about our lovely flag. Yes, it is a beautiful one, but do you have anything else to contribute? And we all should vote today, even if the rules don't say it's mandatory. Then we can analyze discussions tomorrow. Others have mentioned how fruitless it is to lynch someone on the first day. We can thrown around votes and come up with arguments, but unless we get super lucky we won't lynch one of those dirty pirates. We will have one fewer loyal soldier and the scum will be that much happier. A first day lynch almost certainly will benefit the scum, so why are you insisting we vote today?
Ethan Dunn Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 It seems like we have three potential cases for day one lynch. Four, if you think that my reason for not wanting my joke vote in the first tally were scummy. Liam doesn't want us to even vote. Maybe not lynching on day one makes sense but not even voting goes to far. I thought the point was to look at voting patterns. If we don't vote what do we have to look at later, Liam? This could be scum looking for justification for leaving less evidence behind for later. The rules don't say we have to vote but a townie's most powerful tool is his/her vote. Except we have no hers, so his. Morgan called me scummy but didn't vote for me. He hasn't been around to answer questions about this. the strangest part about his post is that he specifically says he didn't vote because it would make him a hypoctire. To that I say WUUUUUT? Ansel's posts are casting suspicion but not. He says Morgan and I are suspicious for potentially setting up the interaction to set ourselves apart but then says its silly. Then continues to come up with scenarios where we're scummy. His actions are scummy for the same reasons as Morgan but they seem more forced to me. When he first explained his suspicion of us he left it as a question. "Could there be something going on between the two?" That seems like a odd way to voice a supsicion because its not voicing it. Its asking others to. Vote: Ansel Michael Of these three people I find him the scummiest. 4 minutes ago, Ansel Michel said: Turn of phrase. I'm aware its a saying. You say that Morgan and I might both be barking up the wrong tree. But I'm not barking up a tree. Morgan's barking up my tree. Who's tree am I barking up? Nobody's. It's like you're not fulling paying attention just trying to seem useful. I'm trying to explain it seems like something scum might do. Look like you're analyzing our behavior but you're not describing behavior that I'm actually doing.
Reginald Aston Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Ethan Dunn said: Liam doesn't want us to even vote. Maybe not lynching on day one makes sense but not even voting goes to far. I thought the point was to look at voting patterns. If we don't vote what do we have to look at later, Liam? This could be scum looking for justification for leaving less evidence behind for later. The rules don't say we have to vote but a townie's most powerful tool is his/her vote. Except we have no hers, so his. I find your logic flawed when it comes to voting. It is our most powerful tool, when used correctly! What voting pattern comes from a day one vote? The scum votes for townies, the townies vote for random people hoping to hit a scum. But all it does is give the scum fodder for future arguments about why we should lynch an innocent town person. Voting on completely random speculation (which is all we have at this point) only adds randomness to the voting pattern in future days. I am willing to vote on day one, I just hope that in future days we can look back on my comments and realize that my vote is completely random. Vote: Kendall Odell - because all that clashing is hurting my ears!
Ethan Dunn Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Reginald Aston said: I find your logic flawed when it comes to voting. It is our most powerful tool, when used correctly! What voting pattern comes from a day one vote? The scum votes for townies, the townies vote for random people hoping to hit a scum. But all it does is give the scum fodder for future arguments about why we should lynch an innocent town person. Voting on completely random speculation (which is all we have at this point) only adds randomness to the voting pattern in future days. Oh thank you. I didn't realize the scum only voted for townies on day one. That will come in handy when we catch a scum because whoever they voted for on day one will definitely be town, right? Cool. Almost like having a free investigation. I also didn't know that first day lynches certainly benefit the scum. I thought I saw a scum get lynched first in the last game. I'll have to do my homework better. I also didn't realize that random speculation never hits on valid suspicions. I also didn't know that there is not voting pattern unless there's a lynch. So much to learn! Thank you for demonstrating how to play. Your random vote and negative attitude help a lot. It doesn't seem scummy of you to encourage us not to vote or look at voting patterns. It's really not scummy to suggest the scum will only be voting for townies today. In case you couldn't tell:
Bob Posted March 20, 2020 Author Posted March 20, 2020 Vote Count: Morgan Marchand - 3 (Robert Walsh, Zachary Mercier, Kendall Odell) Robert Walsh - 2 (Paul LaPointe, Warren Pratt) Ethan Dunn - 1 (Arthur Hargrave) Ansel Michel - 1 (Ethan Dunn) Liam Webb - 1 (Ansel Michel) Kendall Odell - 1 (Reginald Aston) About 32 hours or so remain in Day One. A majority of 9 is required to lynch. 1 hour ago, Zachary Mercier said: Vote: Morgan Marchand 6 hours ago, Kendall Odell said: Vote: Morgan Marchand 36 minutes ago, Ethan Dunn said: Vote: Ansel Michael 21 minutes ago, Reginald Aston said: Vote: Kendall Odell 46 minutes ago, Ansel Michel said: Vote: Liam Webb
Robert Walsh Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 22 hours ago, Paul LaPointe said: You're being kinda defensive. Why? That was asked of you Reginald. And you've commented three times since then, not addressing anything to this question. May I ask why? Also this is the context which you forget to add Paul by putting phrases in my mouth while voting for me. Since you are clearly not very active I must point out again I'm waiting for clarification. Did you misread my motivation or you just cherrypicked my line without considering the quote from Morgan?
Reginald Aston Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 18 minutes ago, Robert Walsh said: That was asked of you Reginald. And you've commented three times since then, not addressing anything to this question. May I ask why? My intention is was to be assertive, not defensive. Responding to your query seemed to only reinforce a defensive posture. I have nothing to hide. But since no one knows who to trust right now you only have my word on the matter. No sense being defensive since you wouldn't believe me even if I had the most air-tight of defenses!
Robert Walsh Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Reginald Aston said: My intention is was to be assertive, not defensive. Responding to your query seemed to only reinforce a defensive posture. I have nothing to hide. But since no one knows who to trust right now you only have my word on the matter. No sense being defensive since you wouldn't believe me even if I had the most air-tight of defenses! This is very nice. Only one teeny-tiny problem with this: that query was coming from Paul and not me. The fact that you did not even check this tells me you are not paying attention while being pressured, and while a townie - out of pride knowing his innocence - would have took the time to actually check the quote you quickly responded with this general-sincerity speech. Which is quite good and untouchable indeed. Now this is the first thing which is actually more fishy to me than Morgan's first remark. Unvote: Morgan Marchand Vote: Reginald Aston
Reginald Aston Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Robert Walsh said: This is very nice. Only one teeny-tiny problem with this: that query was coming from Paul and not me. The fact that you did not even check this tells me you are not paying attention while being pressured, and while a townie - out of pride knowing his innocence - would have took the time to actually check the quote you quickly responded with this general-sincerity speech. Which is quite good and untouchable indeed. Now this is the first thing which is actually more fishy to me than Morgan's first remark. Unvote: Morgan Marchand Vote: Reginald Aston I feel no pressure because I'm not guilty. You currently have 2 votes against you which would certainly be cause for feeling under pressure. Your faulty argument that a townie would automatically do something from a sense of pride (classic case of setting up a straw man to knock down and make your argument seem right) is cause for me to be suspicious. Against my gut instinct that most day one moves are too random to be helpful I think I have reasonable proof of a traitor in our midst! Unvote: Kendall Odell Vote: Robert Walsh
Robert Walsh Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Reginald Aston said: I feel no pressure because I'm not guilty. You currently have 2 votes against you which would certainly be cause for feeling under pressure. Your faulty argument that a townie would automatically do something from a sense of pride (classic case of setting up a straw man to knock down and make your argument seem right) is cause for me to be suspicious. Against my gut instinct that most day one moves are too random to be helpful I think I have reasonable proof of a traitor in our midst! Unvote: Kendall Odell Vote: Robert Walsh First you've built up for your own defense how random your vote for Kendall is. Now you throw it away 2 hours later. How convenient. Also if you think instantly revenge voting me is your best shot, I'm not impressed. You see, you are totally right. I was setting up the strawman, but you was the one knocking it down again. Why not explaining what I've just pointed out? Even if I implied what townies would do (which I do believe is true) you could have just told me you were not remembering well. This is funny because it tells me you silently accepted my reason, but guessed it would be too weak of a defense now. I think what happend is you've just realized I caught you on a mistake and tried to counter it with talking about the votes against me. Which are there for sure, only have nothing to do with this.
Reginald Aston Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Robert Walsh said: Why not explaining what I've just pointed out? Even if I implied what townies would do (which I do believe is true) you could have just told me you were not remembering well. This is funny because it tells me you silently accepted my reason, but guessed it would be too weak of a defense now. Wow, more straw man arguments!
Paul LaPointe Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 19 hours ago, Ethan Dunn said: 'Tis one thing to watch and a total other thing to play Alack, alack, alack. I was already trying to imply that Morgan was too eagerly jumping on the opportunity to call out an obvious joke vote as scummy a bit too seriously. This is the bases of my hunch and nothing more, yes. This sounds a little manipulative, no? 13 hours ago, Liam Webb said: I think we should listen to the flag. No voting today. We don’t know anything! 2 hours ago, Reginald Aston said: Others have mentioned how fruitless it is to lynch someone on the first day. We can thrown around votes and come up with arguments, but unless we get super lucky we won't lynch one of those dirty pirates. We will have one fewer loyal soldier and the scum will be that much happier. A first day lynch almost certainly will benefit the scum, so why are you insisting we vote today? Now listen up, you nabbity-jibbers. If we lynch today we have a one in 16 chance of catching a scum, and we have votes to look at. If we don't lynch, we have zero chance of catching scum, the day is wasted, and scum effectively get a night zero. Not lynching helps the scum - they can relax in the daytime and pick and choose who to kill at night. 1 hour ago, Robert Walsh said: That was asked of you Reginald. And you've commented three times since then, not addressing anything to this question. May I ask why? Also this is the context which you forget to add Paul by putting phrases in my mouth while voting for me. Since you are clearly not very active I must point out again I'm waiting for clarification. Did you misread my motivation or you just cherrypicked my line without considering the quote from Morgan? Thank you for examining my other suspicion. 10 minutes ago, Reginald Aston said: I feel no pressure because I'm not guilty. You currently have 2 votes against you which would certainly be cause for feeling under pressure. Your faulty argument that a townie would automatically do something from a sense of pride (classic case of setting up a straw man to knock down and make your argument seem right) is cause for me to be suspicious. Against my gut instinct that most day one moves are too random to be helpful I think I have reasonable proof of a traitor in our midst! Unvote: Kendall Odell Vote: Robert Walsh I don't like that defensiveness before the fact, or your OMGUS vote here. I doubt you are both scum; on balance I still think Robert Walsh is the scummier. 58 minutes ago, Reginald Aston said: My intention is was to be assertive, not defensive. Responding to your query seemed to only reinforce a defensive posture. I have nothing to hide. But since no one knows who to trust right now you only have my word on the matter. No sense being defensive since you wouldn't believe me even if I had the most air-tight of defenses! And here you are being defensive again. I don't think anyone had accused you of anything at the start.
Robert Walsh Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Paul LaPointe said: This sounds a little manipulative, no? Yes. I wanted to get some reaction but Morgan did not appear since so I've figured I might just as well vote instead. Also Paul, you are still voting for me and I've asked you a couple of questions because of this, but you did not reply just asked me a new one instead. I have to ask you again. 23 hours ago, Paul LaPointe said: 'A scum would never do what I'm doing, so I can't be scum'. This pings me. Vote: Robert Walsh You quoted me without the contect of Morgan's remark. I was not creating an argument for myself, but refering to Morgan. Morgan was pseudovoting and warning others of their constant suspicion. Which I don't like thus my initial vote. On 3/19/2020 at 4:34 PM, Ansel Michel said: Robert Walsh brings up a good point about the pseudovotes and warning other players for voting. But to be fair, Reginald called out Ethan first and did not cast a vote like Morgan did, and Ethan was the first to cast his vote. On 3/19/2020 at 6:28 PM, Ethan Dunn said: Big words. Interpreter please? I think you are saying that Morgan cast suspicion and didn't vote and that seems scummy. Not sure scum would take the risk of casting the first real suspicion but I do get that he cast suspicion on me without placing a vote to back it up. As you can see both Ethan and Ansel understood the context right before you but for some reason you've managed to overlook it. What this intentional?
Paul LaPointe Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 33 minutes ago, Robert Walsh said: You quoted me without the contect of Morgan's remark. I was not creating an argument for myself, but refering to Morgan. Morgan was pseudovoting and warning others of their constant suspicion. Which I don't like thus my initial vote. Grumblefudgets. What pinged me was that you voted based on a suspicion, having just said that scum would voice suspicion rather than vote, the context is irrelevant. Morgan's remark looked to be to be as much in jest as Ethan's vote was, and so I read your vote as 'I'm starting a bandwagon for lame reasons, which scum would never do' Does it mean you're scum? Maybe, maybe not. It was the strongest suspicion I had at the time, then your 'intending to imply' thing pinged me again. Reginald is competing hard for the top suspicion at the moment. I also don't like people popping up just to add a vote to a lame wagon then dipping below the parapet, like Zachary Mercier.
Kendall Odell Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Ethan Dunn said: What's a strawman? *bash* *bash* *bash* Tis’ a man made of straw. I jest of course. A straw man argument is when an opponent attacks a distorted version of someone’s argument. *bash* *bash* *bash*
Robert Walsh Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Reginald Aston said: Wow, more straw man arguments! I think this is just a joker card you are throwing around without saying anything. I ask you directy: why did you not check the quote? Just now, Paul LaPointe said: Grumblefudgets. What pinged me was that you voted based on a suspicion, having just said that scum would voice suspicion rather than vote, the context is irrelevant. Morgan's remark looked to be to be as much in jest as Ethan's vote was, and so I read your vote as 'I'm starting a bandwagon for lame reasons, which scum would never do' Context is irrevelant? Lame reasons? Also you just overlooked my basis of accusation against Reginald, saying I'm still more scummy (while doubting we are both being scummy) while already picking on more of his statements more than mine. Only to miss that specific one which was about his 'little' mistake about the quote. O-KAY. I know we have ~30 hour of this day but let me say this now: Morgan is either went afk or lurking. We know he was here once at least so I say I must say he is lurking waiting for the heat to move on. That is my weakest assumption now I have to admit. Reginald's arguments against Ethan about not voting because it gives us random things to read is clearly not true for this game. Town is here for information. Appending our conversation and my accusation from the previous posts it is clear where I stand with him. I'd lynch him today. Paul says he is very suspicious that Reginald might be a scum but I think he just immediatly appeared to damage my case against him. He is implicating Reginald to be suspicios, but still clearly calling me more scummy (funnily both of them voting for me now). Considering his constant oneliner questions without giving specific responses, cherrypicking lines and questions to answer, calling them lame without explanation, calling context irrevelant I think he is using classic scum tactics. Also he used the buzzword OMGUS so I have a feeling he is an experienced scum player just lingering around to make confusion in certain sensitive situations. Town's main goal is to ask for everything in a clear and consice way, to be detailed about everything. Scums on the other hand are here to make everything out of context, fuzzy and twist things around. Let me quote myself as a reminder: 21 hours ago, Robert Walsh said: Easy to notice three different patterns here: Some fellow soldiers do not contribute at all to the conversation Some of us have talked a lot without actually saying anything Some of us were active to find tells even if they were weak/projected ones
Mitchell LaHore Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 18 hours ago, Elijah Hendry said: @Mitchell LaHore is that your father's name or did your mother give it to you? I'm pretty sure it was a collaborative effort. 4 hours ago, Ethan Dunn said: Except we have no hers, so his. Prove it! 4 hours ago, Ethan Dunn said: It seems like we have three potential cases for day one lynch. Four, if you think that my reason for not wanting my joke vote in the first tally were scummy. Liam doesn't want us to even vote. Maybe not lynching on day one makes sense but not even voting goes to far. I thought the point was to look at voting patterns. If we don't vote what do we have to look at later, Liam? This could be scum looking for justification for leaving less evidence behind for later. The rules don't say we have to vote but a townie's most powerful tool is his/her vote. Except we have no hers, so his. Morgan called me scummy but didn't vote for me. He hasn't been around to answer questions about this. the strangest part about his post is that he specifically says he didn't vote because it would make him a hypoctire. To that I say WUUUUUT? Ansel's posts are casting suspicion but not. He says Morgan and I are suspicious for potentially setting up the interaction to set ourselves apart but then says its silly. Then continues to come up with scenarios where we're scummy. His actions are scummy for the same reasons as Morgan but they seem more forced to me. When he first explained his suspicion of us he left it as a question. "Could there be something going on between the two?" That seems like a odd way to voice a supsicion because its not voicing it. Its asking others to. Liam's suggestion of not voting at all is clearly the least helpful thing anyone has said. In the absence of votes, there's absolutely nothing for anyone else to review later with any clarity. 4 hours ago, Reginald Aston said: I find your logic flawed when it comes to voting. It is our most powerful tool, when used correctly! What voting pattern comes from a day one vote? The scum votes for townies, the townies vote for random people hoping to hit a scum. But all it does is give the scum fodder for future arguments about why we should lynch an innocent town person. Voting on completely random speculation (which is all we have at this point) only adds randomness to the voting pattern in future days. I am willing to vote on day one, I just hope that in future days we can look back on my comments and realize that my vote is completely random. Vote: Kendall Odell - because all that clashing is hurting my ears! I realize you changed your vote later, but this is all sorts of weird. You talk about the townies voting for random people in the hopes of hitting scum, then vote randomly. However, in between, you say that voting randomly adds nothing to future days. You're doing exactly what you say doesn't work for the town. Everyone should vote for who they find most scummy. The vote you cast should be made on the pretense that, if forced to cast one vote that you knew would result in that person's death, that's the person you'd want dead. Yes, we have very little to go on, but the conversation is enough to start figuring out how you feel about some people. You can't listen to all this conversation with the goal of finding scum and come away completely neutral on everyone. If you do, it's because you don't care who dies as long as it's not one of your scummy teammates. It also shows you're not listening. People are picking sides and by human nature, you will agree more with one side than the other. That's just how people are. Vote: Reginald Aston
Ansel Michel Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 6 hours ago, Reginald Aston said: Others have mentioned how fruitless it is to lynch someone on the first day. We can thrown around votes and come up with arguments, but unless we get super lucky we won't lynch one of those dirty pirates. We will have one fewer loyal soldier and the scum will be that much happier. A first day lynch almost certainly will benefit the scum, so why are you insisting we vote today? On the contrary, I think everyone should vote. Do we need to reach a lynch on Day 1? Maybe not. If people vote their gut, we have things to talk about tomorrow. 6 hours ago, Ethan Dunn said: Ansel's posts are casting suspicion but not. He says Morgan and I are suspicious for potentially setting up the interaction to set ourselves apart but then says its silly. Then continues to come up with scenarios where we're scummy. His actions are scummy for the same reasons as Morgan but they seem more forced to me. When he first explained his suspicion of us he left it as a question. "Could there be something going on between the two?" That seems like a odd way to voice a supsicion because its not voicing it. Its asking others to. Vote: Ansel Michael It's possible, it has happened before, players playing off each other. I'm just laying out the scenarios that I see.
Recommended Posts