Elijah Hendry Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 4 hours ago, Robert Walsh said: This is very nice. Only one teeny-tiny problem with this: that query was coming from Paul and not me. But you're the one pressing Reginald on it - you can't repeat a question to someone and then wash your hands of having asked the question. Not to mention saying "why are you so defensive? huh? huh?" is a loaded question - there's no way out - either you ignore it and suddenly you're scummy for ignoring someone's query, or you defend yourself and you're scummy for being so defensive. 3 hours ago, Paul LaPointe said: And here you are being defensive again. I don't think anyone had accused you of anything at the start. comme ça 4 hours ago, Reginald Aston said: 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! LaWhore has already pointed out how strange your first vote was - "townies vote randomly on day one and it's useless but it's what townies do so I'll vote randomly so ha!" but I want to emphasize what a friggin' wiggidy-wack word "proof" is in this situation. My reads thus far are as follows: Ethan, Morgan, Reginald — dumb Liam — annoying
Paul LaPointe Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Robert Walsh said: 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. You may recall that I was the first person to point out that that lumberstump Reginald was being defensive, which you picked up on, and caused you to vote for him. I agree he is suspicious. So are you. So is everybody else. The context of that particular point was irrelevant, and in my opinion, the reasons were lame. My reasons for voting for you are lame, but less lame than the reasons you gave for voting for Morgan. It's all lame, it's day one. Your reasons for voting for Reginald are less lame. I said I doubt you're both scum, not that you're not both being scummy. I would probably be more inclined to with votes, if you weren't so freaked out by having two or three votes on you.
Arthur Hargrave Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 4 hours ago, Robert Walsh said: 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. Indeed. BTW @Liam Webb do you want no day one lynch or no voting whatsoever? Surely the former?
Ethan Dunn Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 19 minutes ago, Elijah Hendry said: Ethan, Morgan, Reginald — dumb Liam — annoying Is it in in Reginald and Elijah's character flavor to be arrogant and insulting or is it in the players own personal character? Play the game you feel good about. I intend not to inslut anybody. With the one exception of squashy faces.
Benjamin Samuels Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 On 3/19/2020 at 12:22 PM, Morgan Marchand said: This feels scummy to me - voting so quickly to kill a (potential) fellow soldier. I'd vote for you, but that would be epicly hypocritical at this point. But I'm definitely ranking you high in my suspicion-o-meter. This pinged me because Ethan's vote seemed clearly like a joke vote to me at the time. Whereas Reginald's and Robert's responses to Ethan's vote came across as calling him out for the joke vote, Morgan's response was much firmer in his view that it was scummy. I'd like to hear from Morgan as to why he did not see this as a joke vote. On 3/20/2020 at 3:28 AM, Ethan Dunn said: opsy! I didn't intend to have my joke vote make it to a tally. Unote: Arthur Hargrave but I'm watching your squashy face! On 3/20/2020 at 5:29 AM, Ethan Dunn said: I intended to unvote once the joke got a couple laughs and responses. With it in the tally anyone scanning the thread might think there's something to Arthur thats scummy and not just bad photoshopp. I guess I'll try harder? I didn't really get your concerns about the vote showing in the tally and then your explanation was even stranger. Anyone paying enough attention would have seen it for what it was. Can you explain why you would be concerned about someone thinking Arthur was scum? 20 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...” 17 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! Liam's contribution's have been pretty unhelpful, contributing without saying much at all There were two posts soleyl about the flag (before the two above) where he had the opportunity to contribute tot he discussion but chose not to add his views. Then there were the two above, again not really contributing to the conversation, just saying we shouldn't vote. I would like to know what you meant by "Protect ... me". 6 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! What is the purpose of this vote given is completely random, it "only adds randomness" and voting is not compulsory? I appreciate you changed your vote later (supposedly on "proof", which I don't think really helps your case), but it doesn't change the fact that your first vote made no sense at all.
Liam Webb Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Arthur Hargrave said: Indeed. BTW @Liam Webb do you want no day one lynch or no voting whatsoever? Surely the former? The flag doesn’t want a day 1 lynch. It says there is no evidence of who among us is a traitor, and we will likely lynch a loyalist.
Reginald Aston Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Ah, the joys of verbal riposte. As has been said by people besides me, Day 1 is often total randomness: On 3/19/2020 at 10:34 AM, 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. And our drummer speaks a lot of sense, Day 1 is a nonsense day with weak reasoning. I would like to show direct evidence of this. First, you are assumed scum if you vote quickly: On 3/18/2020 at 9:22 PM, Morgan Marchand said: This feels scummy to me - voting so quickly to kill a (potential) fellow soldier. I'd vote for you, but that would be epicly hypocritical at this point. But I'm definitely ranking you high in my suspicion-o-meter. Then you are assumed scum if you don't say anything at all: On 3/19/2020 at 11:57 AM, Kendall Odell said: I’m definitely not against Day One lynching. It’s important to get the ball rolling sooner rather than later. Morgan’s comment felt baity. Like he was waiting for someone to take it up and cast the first vote on Ethan. I’m going to place my vote for Lieutenant Paul, our first mate, who has not commented on the situation at all. Speak up man! And following that we have the claim that lurking means you are likely scum: 2 hours ago, Paul LaPointe said: 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. So, on Day 1 you are scum if you vote, don't vote, say something, don't say something or stop saying anything at all. In competition with that mountain of logic I find no way out. So I voted. 3 hours ago, Paul LaPointe said: 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. We may have 0 chance of catching scum, but we also have 0 chance of lynching an innocent man (or woman). The possibility of lynching may keep scum on their toes, but it also forces innocent men to fight for their innocence. I think what we have here is a disagreement on strategy. But as my commanding officer I shall allow you to have the final word... that and I've already cast a vote. 1 hour ago, Mitchell LaHore said: 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 Just now, Benjamin Samuels said: What is the purpose of this vote given is completely random, it "only adds randomness" and voting is not compulsory? I appreciate you changed your vote later (supposedly on "proof", which I don't think really helps your case), but it doesn't change the fact that your first vote made no sense at all. When I voted for Odell I voted out of necessity, not out of a desire to see someone lynched. I picked someone who had no votes because I knew he was not likely to be lynched based on my 1 vote. To say that every vote cast is a desire to see someone hanged is cold hearted indeed. We may have traitors in our midst, but we also have loyal friends! I trust no one right now, but that doesn't mean I desire to see them all hanged. I will pick sides as more obvious evidence comes to light. Such as has happened with Morgan.
Arthur Hargrave Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Liam Webb said: The flag doesn’t want a day 1 lynch. It says there is no evidence of who among us is a traitor, and we will likely lynch a loyalist. Does the flag...tell you things Liam?
Ethan Dunn Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Benjamin Samuels said: I didn't really get your concerns about the vote showing in the tally and then your explanation was even stranger. Anyone paying enough attention would have seen it for what it was. Can you explain why you would be concerned about someone thinking Arthur was scum? Yes Ill try. It wasn't that I was concerned the would see him as scummy but that they would be lazy and not read my joke and think there was something where there wasn't. I was worried I had comitted a bad mafia etiquet by not unvoting my joke before it was officially tallyed. Like it was unfair to Arthur to see it in the official tally. I just didn't want the joke vote there. I'm just trying to be a good mafia player and thought that was rude to forget to unvote.
Benjamin Samuels Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Reginald Aston said: When I voted for Odell I voted out of necessity, ... What exactly was the necessity? You did not have to vote.
Liam Webb Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Arthur Hargrave said: Does the flag...tell you things Liam? The flag is my best friend. If the traitors take over they will destroy my precious flag. Letting a lynch happen today brings us one body closer to the traitors winning. I wont let anyone hurt the flag.
Ethan Dunn Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 17 hours ago, Liam Webb said: I think we should listen to the flag. No voting today. We don’t know anything! 5 minutes ago, Liam Webb said: The flag doesn’t want a day 1 lynch. It says there is no evidence of who among us is a traitor, and we will likely lynch a loyalist. That's not what you said though.
Arthur Hargrave Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Liam Webb said: The flag is my best friend. If the traitors take over they will destroy my precious flag. Letting a lynch happen today brings us one body closer to the traitors winning. I wont let anyone hurt the flag. Do you plan on helping us find the traitors or just keep telling us not to lynch anyone today? 8 minutes ago, Reginald Aston said: So, on Day 1 you are scum if you vote, don't vote, say something, don't say something or stop saying anything at all. In competition with that mountain of logic I find no way out. So I voted. Oh please.
Mitchell LaHore Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Liam Webb said: The flag is my best friend. If the traitors take over they will destroy my precious flag. Letting a lynch happen today brings us one body closer to the traitors winning. I wont let anyone hurt the flag. By that logic we should never convict anyone unless we're 100% certain of getting it right. In the meantime, the traitors will win while we sit idly by. Inaction is not a course for victory. Even if we don't secure a conviction today, the votes can be helpful later... but only if people actually vote for someone they distrust.
Arthur Hargrave Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 15 minutes ago, Liam Webb said: The flag doesn’t want a day 1 lynch. It says there is no evidence of who among us is a traitor, and we will likely lynch a loyalist. What do you consider evidence? Night actions? You want us to sit around and wait till a investigator comes along and says "Nah fam I got you! This MF over here is a MFing Pirate!"?
Robert Walsh Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, Elijah Hendry said: But you're the one pressing Reginald on it - you can't repeat a question to someone and then wash your hands of having asked the question. Not to mention saying "why are you so defensive? huh? huh?" is a loaded question - there's no way out - either you ignore it and suddenly you're scummy for ignoring someone's query, or you defend yourself and you're scummy for being so defensive. I did not care about that silly question. It wasn't meant to press Reginald originally either. I was after Paul. I wanted to get him talking, by quoting him with something else. I very much wanted him to clarify my accusation, but I already had the hunch that was just a tactical distraction and he is going to avoid giving any detailed answer. It was a feeling at that moment. I really thought he was taking things out of context and just throwing in fishy questions while being quite inactive. This "ya being kinda defensive?" and questions are an example of twisting and talking without saying anything useful. But also I was interested what would Reginald say to this and realized he actually just sneaked over this one while being very keen on talking. Also I think skipping a question is a shady thing in itself. His answer was not quite interesting itself, but not realizing who was asking originally felt like a scumtell. This is still the best thing what I've got next to Paul's play style so I went with it with my vote. Also Paul was quick to respond this time, while I asked him a question before quoting him. Just as I suspected he indeed jumped over my initial questions and asked me an "isn't that manipulative?" kind of question instead. This is where I knew he is probably reading everything carefully, but cherrypicking convenient things to response while trying to distract. I repeated my question now he was on the hook and he told me the same reason to which I said it is again just taking out of context. He tells me how he read things. Just before one sentence context is irrevelant. Well, without context you can read anything you want. And that's the tool a scum would use. As for Reginald I think he made a bad play there, because his response in repeating this straw man thing without actually giving an answer is a Sign of wish-wash for me. I asked him again in a form of a direct question to really get an exact response. 2 hours ago, Robert Walsh said: I ask you directy: why did you not check the quote? Even now he jumped over it. 19 minutes ago, Paul LaPointe said: I would probably be more inclined to with votes, if you weren't so freaked out by having two or three votes on you. Talking about my votes is the same tactic Reginald has used. I have to remind you Paul, that one of these votes is made by you, and you said yourself context is not relevant. You still read something out of my actions to disprove this. Also you truly have made actually very good readings on other players on the meantime, so it seems you are very able to read the proper context if you want to. As again my theory goes: Paul being an observing but inactive distractive player saw my attack on Reginald and - just as he stated - started think he might be scum. As he is probably very much a scum himself - following my theory - he thought it might be a good way to give a pseudo-pressure on him while practically still being voted against me. I think he found it a good standing ground probably seeing a higher chance of me being town (this is what I belive he thinks anyway). This is where I am.
Liam Webb Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Arthur Hargrave said: What do you consider evidence? Night actions? You want us to sit around and wait till a investigator comes along and says "Nah fam I got you! This MF over here is a MFing Pirate!"? The Flag and I say that waiting for real evidence is the wise course of action. We have interesting speculation from the chat, but actions speak louder than words. Tomorrow we will have Evidence to lynch someone.
Robert Walsh Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 28 minutes ago, Liam Webb said: Letting a lynch happen today brings us one body closer to the traitors winning. One question: Why? Elaborate it, please.
Ethan Dunn Posted March 20, 2020 Posted March 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Ansel Michel said: 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. It's possible, it has happened before, players playing off each other. I'm just laying out the scenarios that I see. That wasn't what I was asking about. I understand you're suggesting Regianld and I could be scum playing off each other. But the way you say it is weird. You don't explain or come to a conclusion you just ask an open question for others to fill in the blanks. Look at what you've said On 3/19/2020 at 10:34 AM, 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. And our drummer speaks a lot of sense, Day 1 is a nonsense day with weak reasoning. On 3/19/2020 at 5:29 PM, Ansel Michel said: Ethan, joke votes always count. It does tend to get us all into trouble, read the most recent book. Now Morgan seeming to not take it as a joke seems suspect, but Ethan is fairly defensive as well. Could there be something going on between the two? 19 hours ago, Ansel Michel said: . I was suggesting was repartee between you two could be a planned game, yet that could be rather silly. I do read old romance tales. Get the town to focus on two different people. Or, one of you could be scum trying to drum up conspiracy. Or you both could be town and barking up the wrong tree. In the first post you layout suspicion against Reginald and randomly report that I voted first. I don't understand why that's in that sentence. Then you ramble off about not voting. But you don't conclude anything. You just speculate like you're trying to seem helpful but its not really helpful. In the second post you ask an open question without drawing any of your own conclusions like you're trying to direct suspicion but not be responsible for it. And in the third one as I've asked twice now, what tree was I barking up. Its not an accurate report of what was going on. You lay out a suspicion and immediately call it silly then you conclude by saying we're both barking up the wrong tree. It sounds weird to me because we're not both barking up the same tree and I still don't see the metaphoric tree I'm supposed to be barking up. This is what seems scummy to me. Like you want people to suspect one of us because there's activity around us but you're not even paying attention to what the activity is. So again what tree was I barking up? You weren't wishywashy when you voted Liam so maybe this is just how you get discussion going. It did seem scummt though. I think Robert may be onto something about Paul. There's a lot to read though so Im going to turn the music off and really concentrate on it and see what hes talking about.
Ethan Dunn Posted March 21, 2020 Posted March 21, 2020 3 hours ago, Kendall Odell said: *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* Thank you. I had googled it and got a similar response. I think I understand now.
Arthur Hargrave Posted March 21, 2020 Posted March 21, 2020 55 minutes ago, Liam Webb said: Tomorrow we will have Evidence to lynch someone. In what form? A dead townie?
Ethan Dunn Posted March 21, 2020 Posted March 21, 2020 I looked over this marathon argument between Reginald, Paull and Robert and I think I understand what the three of them are saying. I think this may be three townies arguing over each other. Robert I think Paul was saying that you voted while accusing Morgan of not voting trying to make yourself look like not the thing you were saying Morgan was. And that was a pinge for him. I think that even in context his explanation makes sense. Hes also right that Reginald's vote for you was OMGUS cuz it was. The only pinge I get from Paul is that he thinks Morgan's response to me was also a joke. Maybe that's the hypocrite part that I don't get. Maybe he's right but he seems to be alone in his thinking and its odd because Morgan has the most votes and Paul is kind of defending him. I get the most pinges from Rginald because he says hes trying to be assertive to not appear defensive. Don't we appear defensive when we defend ourselves? What's wrong with that. He also encouraged us not to vote or even look at votes and tried to make us believe that looking at voting patterns when there was no lynch had no use. The most supsicious of the three is Reginald because of his insisting we don't vote, then placing a random vote then saying he had no choice but to voice and then calling it reasonable proof against Robert. 6 hours ago, Reginald Aston said: 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! He starts buy telling us he doesn't think there's any evidence on day one but now he thinks he has reasonable proof. I find his posts hard to follow maybe because I am apparently dumb, but he says 1 hour ago, Reginald Aston said: I will pick sides as more obvious evidence comes to light. Such as has happened with Morgan. Has more evidence come to light on Morgan? Or did he just mix up names cuz its day one? I'm kind of convincing myself on Reginald here as when you look at it altogether he's pretty scummy. And hes not very nice to people and I don't like that. I know we're not supposed to vote because of that but I find it scummy as well to just push people around instead of being reasoonable. He says he doesn't want to look defensive so hes choosing to be assertive. Why be worried about seeming defensive? Unless you have something to be defensive about? I am leaning town on Robert at the moment. He seems like a townie who is trying to read people but his eyes are stuck on the two people voting for him. I can understand his concerns about them outside of that though so maybe its not just his mindset. I think hes misunderstood Paul but may be onto something with Reginald. That took me a long time to look at everything and respond. This is hard work!!
Arthur Hargrave Posted March 21, 2020 Posted March 21, 2020 Right well this isn't necessary anymore. Unvote: Ethan Dunn Vote: Reginald Aston for now. Don't know what to make of Liam atm. Won't help with tommorow's reads if we were to lynch him though I think.
Robert Walsh Posted March 21, 2020 Posted March 21, 2020 Just now, Ethan Dunn said: That took me a long time to look at everything and respond. This is hard work!! I have to reply to your view on Paul's ping towards me. Actually it is not a big deal he got pinged by me and voted for me. I'm totally not on Paul because I got a vote from him. It's only that others were seeing the context so intuitively that I just couldn't believe Paul would not see that I was not trying to make an argument out of thin air but refering to Morgan. Yes I wanted to move things forward, that's true. His whole first comment attitude told me he is smarter than that. But it can happen, for sure. Lets go with that, also he had no ground to take me for anything good. In this case why pushing aside my valid and patient questions? Also Morgan is still not a bad lead. Where is he? Did he just went full first comment accusational then left the game? How is it Paul not saying anything about the actual Morgan lead. So my problem is not his theory of me being scummy. My problem is there are so much bigger scummy things going on and he still jumping over my questions. To other totally more scummy things he did not say anything useful but also useless open-ended remarks. That is not townish. Also "context is irrevelant". A townie would not think that. Anyway I was truly not going after Reginald at first. Getting that scumtell (according to me) from him was not the plan and was unexpected. And the fact that he sweot it under the rug makes it the most solid thing I myself have. All in all Reginald is the vote for me, because if he is just not playing the Village Idiot role, he is just a bad scum player in my opinion. And I think for Village Idiot Liam is making himself a better candidate. I think he is playing us by playing stupid. I just can't decide whether for town or scums at this moment. Also I'm following your debate with Ansel I assure you. And I totally see your point there. Ansel was much more consistent so far then Paul imho. But it seems we find each other's suspicion less suspicious. At least Ansel did answer your every questions, but he was truly not very exact and too open-ended for too many remarks until throwing a vote on Liam. Also Arthur seems town to me as well, because he is making good and inconvenient questions scums would never like. Still he is making that kind of a blank vote on you. Maybe there is something to that as well, but beside that you are too townish at the moment that it would not help us with a lynch for sure. /* Edit : he has just unvoted you so we may proceed to something useful here */ I think a Liam lynch may still start because a lot of player is onto him already and he is not helping us. I still insist on Reginald tough. While I think Ansel is also being watched by players, he did not make that much of a scummy move to getting lynched today. I won't be heartbroken without first day lynching, but as I've told I can be a business partner in it all the same if that's where we are truly going. But we need to reduce the options for that.
Bob Posted March 21, 2020 Author Posted March 21, 2020 Vote Count: Morgan Marchand - 1 (Zachary Mercier) Robert Walsh - 3 (Paul LaPointe, Warren Pratt, Reginald Aston) Ansel Michel - 1 (Ethan Dunn) Liam Webb - 1 (Ansel Michel) Kendall Odell - 1 (Reginald Aston) Reginald Aston - 3 (Robert Walsh, Mitchell Lahore, Arthur Hargrave) About 21 hours or so remain in Day One. A majority of 9 is required to lynch.
Recommended Posts