Pirates Mafia III - Day One

[Peter Lyon]

23 hours ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Oui monsieur le lieutenant Lyon! 5 barrels mon Dieu? Sounds like lot of work for a single (hic) personne. 

Mercy buckets!

21 hours ago, Justin Reynaud said:

I think a day 1 lynch is critical. We dare not waste a chance to killer one of the intruders. And at the very least it allows us data to work off of in future days. I find Andrew's logic about poke votes to be sound. Since he has already voted for Michael, I will vote for Joshua.

Vote: Joshua Levitt

This does feel a bit like you're just trying to follow Andrew here.  Filling the great void of not having a vote on all the non-contributers... not really something we were asking for.

20 hours ago, Joshua Levitt said:

Hey everyone, I'm here. Been battling sickness, I don't think it's the plague, thank goodness.

I'm seeing more than one person already pushing for a no-lynch and that's very troubling to me. As some have ready pointed out, it is extremely important and I worry about the motives behind anyone pushing for a no-lynch so early in the investigation.

Who all did you see pushing for a no-lynch?  Who among them do you find particularly troubling?

 

20 hours ago, Fabien Bellamy said:

Monsieur Dumont, please do start by sharing your opinion on this vital issue first.

1 hour ago, Fred Dumont said:

Of course, Monsieur Bellamy. I find myself thinking that we should have a lynch today. Who that is, I have no clue or leaning as of this moment.

There's something odd about this interaction to me.  Dumont called for everyone to say what they felt about a no-lynch, but didn't give his opinion.  Then when called out (?) later, he "finds himself thinking" he wants a lynch.  Oh yeah, several people have already said they were for a lynch in rather clear terms.

Vote: Fred Dumont

[Daniel Lucas]

1 hour ago, Vincent Denis said:

You're right, I totally forgot to consider the posts that would come after mine when I posted that there was nothing to go on yet.

You seemed to imply a need for serious information to go on. Two votes on absent people followed and you somewhat jumped on this, while they were backed by simple reasons. An initial scum votes scum is a valid possibility but not a definitive scenario to be something of a sufficient proof at this moment in my opinion. Point noted however.

You've mentioned fishing. This sounds forced from you, because clearly no reason to make any claims on Day One whatsoever. I think you know that scums would not even try fishing this early and take any risk in the process. Also Andrew seemed to mention it in the context of active discussion being important. My opinion is that you are projecting this label.

1 hour ago, Vincent Denis said:

Sorry this suspicion is out of the blue and I didn't think of it before you did it. I must be sarcastically fabricating an argument, right?

Quite right, because:

17 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

Sounds like he's trying too hard to explain his actions

Your own remark fits you more than your accused one.

 

[Vincent Denis]

*Fwom fwom—

1 minute ago, Daniel Lucas said:

You seemed to imply a need for serious information to go on.

Is that so? Where? I said "There's not much to go on." You're inferring some need for serious information. And where would we get serious information on day one? We're supposed to look at what people have said and that's what I'm doing.

1 minute ago, Daniel Lucas said:

You've mentioned fishing. This sounds forced from you, because clearly no reason to make any claims on Day One whatsoever. I think you know that scums would not even try fishing this early and take any risk in the process. Also Andrew seemed to mention it in the context of active discussion being important. My opinion is that you are projecting this label.

I'm not saying someone would say "We have night actions, Andrew! Look at me, I'm the investigator, so don't worry!" I'm saying the mention of not having any and the double warning about how hard it's going to be to coordinate without constant PMing in the game could result in conversation where people unintentionally imply that they have actions. I said "seems a bit like fishing" and "subtle fishing." No where did I say Andrew came out and asked for roles. And wouldn't scum mention it in some innocuous-seeming conversation instead of being blatant?

1 minute ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Quite right, because:

Your own remark fits you more than your accused one.

 I can't believe I have to explain this. You seem to have switched your sarcasm meter to "off." You're saying I'm going too far in explaining my suspicion of you by saying I should've suspected you for something you did before you did it? Yes, I was seriously explaining that I didn't have clairvoyance. Since your meter is off, that's sarcasm. The point is-you're saying my suspicion of Andrew came "out of the blue" when the things I found him suspicious for (and looking back found even his first post suspicious) hadn't happened yet.    

*Fwom fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwomma fwomma  fwom fwom fwomma fwom fwomma fwoma fwom fwom*

[Aiden Leon]

19 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

The coin flips is what gets me here. Sounds like he's trying too hard to explain his actions.

I could say your looking to hard into these things, but I'd be nothing more than a rotten liar if I said it didn't ping myself as well.

19 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

Also, "We don't know if we have any night abilities..." seems a bit like fishing to me. Maybe he's looking for someone to disagree with him. He's talking about getting us all organized, trying to encourage a town block and we know those can be infiltrated by scum who appear like well-intentioned townies.

This is the second time he's tried to scare us over the PM restrictions and encourages us to talk more. About what? Our night actions or lack thereof? More subtle fishing.

Great job Andrew! Look how much Michael has posted since you voted for him. Bob said he's looking for a replacement so you're likely poking nobody here. These actions seem like a townie over-eager to lead or a scum trying too hard to appear like a townie. There's not a lot to go on on day one and I could be barking up the wrong tree, but Andrew has posted for times and I've felt a ping in each one of those. 

This is all a possibility as are a lot of the things you've said afterwards.

 

[Alex Howe]

Weeeeee!! My what a view I have had from up on the giraffe! I do hope I get daily rides accompanied by Mr Denis blowing a lot!

So much talk of poking!  I do love a good poke!  But it doesn't seem very conducive to catching anyone out right now!  Although it has certainly stirred up some lively rum-fueled discussion!

Mr Laurent!  You are welcome to mount the giraffe after me, despite your poking and prodding!  But like others I too find the coin flip explanation a tad unnecessary!  I don't think it warrants a vote against you right now, but it is worth noting!

Mr Reynaud! You may have a luxurious and enviable moustache but your poking makes me more uncomfortable that Mr Laurent's hard poking! Mr Levitt reported for duty yet your poke remains firmly poked! You did not even acknowledge his late arrival when you later responded to Lieutenant Pelley!  Possibly you were distracted by his even more enviable moustache and bold sideburns!

[Aiden Leon]

2 hours ago, Daniel Lucas said:

You've mentioned fishing. This sounds forced from you,

Your own remark fits you more than your accused one.

Nay Daniel!!! Must you stamp out what life eminates out of Vincent be it forced or not? He could very well be like one who tries to get water from a stone, but at least he searches with intent versus those who choose to wander aimlessly or wait for one to come forth and call themselves leader!

[Justin Reynaud]

On 4/5/2020 at 8:22 PM, Joshua Levitt said:

Hey everyone, I'm here. Been battling sickness, I don't think it's the plague, thank goodness.

I'm seeing more than one person already pushing for a no-lynch and that's very troubling to me. As some have ready pointed out, it is extremely important and I worry about the motives behind anyone pushing for a no-lynch so early in the investigation.

I am sorry to hear you are under the weather. 

6 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

Congratulations Justin. Your vote and your vote alone got Justin talking. Nobody can tell you you're not a hero. Now that's he's been successfully poked, are you leaving your vote on him?

*Fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom, fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom*

** got Joshua talking.

Your attitude seems to be most abrasive rather than helpful. My vote was a poke to get everyone talking, not just Joshua. And people are still talking, so I see no reason to remove it just yet. Though I imagine a more suitable candidate will present himself before the day is over.

3 hours ago, Peter Lyon said:

This does feel a bit like you're just trying to follow Andrew here.  Filling the great void of not having a vote on all the non-contributers... not really something we were asking for.

As Daniel has pointed out, the poke votes have got people talking. What else would you like to ask for?

10 minutes ago, Alex Howe said:

Mr Reynaud! You may have a luxurious and enviable moustache but your poking makes me more uncomfortable that Mr Laurent's hard poking! Mr Levitt reported for duty yet your poke remains firmly poked! You did not even acknowledge his late arrival when you later responded to Lieutenant Pelley!  Possibly you were distracted by his even more enviable moustache and bold sideburns!

Perhaps you have Joshua Levitt confused with one of the other soldiers? He has only day old scruff for facial hair as far as I can tell. It is true I neglected to bid him hello when I last commented. I have corrected this now. Andrew's poke on Michael remains intact even though it seems obvious now he is the one we are waiting on a replacement for. Is there a reason you want to analysis my vote more than Andrews? It does not seem likely, but could it be that you and Joshua are both scum and you are seeking to defend him in his absence? Joshua has not added much to the discussion yet. Hopefully he is quickly recovering, but just in case he is trying to lay low for some reason my initial poke remains. 

[Daniel Lucas]

32 minutes ago, Aiden Leon said:

I could say your looking to hard into these things, but I'd be nothing more than a rotten liar if I said it didn't ping myself as well.

10 minutes ago, Aiden Leon said:

Nay Daniel!!! Must you stamp out what life eminates out of Vincent be it forced or not? He could very well be like one who tries to get water from a stone, but at least he searches with intent versus those who choose to wander aimlessly or wait for one to come forth and call themselves leader!

23 minutes ago, Alex Howe said:

I do hope I get daily rides accompanied by Mr Denis blowing a lot!

Mr Laurent! ... Mr Reynaud! ...

Clearly seems you are quite convinced of Vincent Denis' integrity. You said you could say he is looking too hard into things or get water from stone, buuuut.... you don't say it. Instead jumping on the two poke voters as well.

It seems a little convenient to focus on those he has accused after you've implied a pseudo-suspicion of Vincent.

Am I the only one seeing a pattern here? Maybe you two know something of Vincent I do not.

[Vincent Denis]

*Fwomma fwomma fwom fwom*

2 minutes ago, Justin Reynaud said:

I am sorry to hear you are under the weather. 

This is all you have to say to the person you're voting for? You poked him to get him talking and now he has talked and you don't have any response to what he said?

4 minutes ago, Justin Reynaud said:

My vote was a poke to get everyone talking, not just Joshua. And people are still talking, so I see no reason to remove it just yet. Though I imagine a more suitable candidate will present himself before the day is over.

As Daniel has pointed out, the poke votes have got people talking. What else would you like to ask for?

I'd like to ask that you answer to the people who have questioned your behavior. Your vote got everyone talking and it is somehow still getting us talking just by sitting there, poke-less? That's not what you said about the vote when you placed it: 

On 4/5/2020 at 7:24 PM, Justin Reynaud said:

I find Andrew's logic about poke votes to be sound.

OK, so let's check what Andrew said:

On 4/5/2020 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Laurent said:

Sometimes "poke votes" can help get people active.

If that's all you read, maybe you'd think it means that poking one person gets all people active, which I find ridiculous. 

On 4/5/2020 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Laurent said:

I did a simple coin flip to choose between Michael and Joshua. At this point neither is being helpful. That may be just due to the weekend and the scurvy going around, but it may be because they're not wanting to go on record and get caught later in lies. 

But Andrew added this which, to me, seems clear he means simply to get those who haven't posted to be active. It's almost like you're trying to parrot Andrew:

On 4/5/2020 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Laurent said:

I think a day 1 lynch is vital.

On 4/5/2020 at 7:24 PM, Justin Reynaud said:

I think a day 1 lynch is critical.

Hmmmmm...this reminds me of the time we were infiltrated by pirates and three soldiers named Robert, Paul and Reginald got into a dust up early on. As it turned out, the one in the middle, Paul ended up being the scum. Which one of Andrew, Justin and Daniel is Paul? I think it may be Justin. I'd like to hear from Andrew first before switching my vote, though.

12 minutes ago, Justin Reynaud said:

Andrew's poke on Michael remains intact even though it seems obvious now he is the one we are waiting on a replacement for. Is there a reason you want to analysis my vote more than Andrews? 

He hasn't been here! You have and so has Joshua and he answered directly to you about not being here! There's a huge difference. How could you not see it for yourself?

Just now, Daniel Lucas said:

Clearly seems you are quite convinced of Vincent Denis' integrity. You said you could say he is looking too hard into things or get water from stone, buuuut.... you don't say it.

 They're referring to me looking at Andrew so closely which isn't scummy. It's what we're supposed to do. And I wouldn't be posting so much about Andrew's four posts had you not swooped in to defend him and Justin. Defending two scummy poke-votes is suspicious and now I'm looking very closely at all three of you and encouraging others to do so. That's how the game is played. 

I am, by no means, trying to convince everyone to lynch Andrew. There are less active people who might be sitting back and watching townies fight while they laugh and wait to kill us at night. I felt pings from Andrew and I mentioned them. That's the way to infiltrate these spies from our ranks. Daniel, you can pick that apart all you like but it's not going to stop me from doing it.

*Fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom*

[Andrew Laurent]

5 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

There's nothing helpful about poke votes. Especially when the host is asking for a replacement and it's clear that nobody is being poked. 

Really? Seems like my poke has caused more conversation than anything else around here (except giraffes). And when I placed that vote, I hadn't seen a replacement request.  

5 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

There has also been a huge slow down in activity over the last 12 hours or so which makes me think one of the current votes may actually be onto someone. 

Or, you know, it became Monday and we had to return to our regularly scheduled duties around the fort. 

5 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

*Fwom fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwoooooooooooom fwom fwom fwom*

And for someone griping about "useless poke votes" and the like, you sure make a lot of useless noise! 

 

58 minutes ago, Aiden Leon said:

I could say your looking to hard into these things, but I'd be nothing more than a rotten liar if I said it didn't ping myself as well.

Really? Mentioning a coin flip is what seems odd out of all the usual first day nonsense? I knew someone would ask why I voted for Michael over Joshua, so I was explaining my vote. 

dang, almost forgot:

Unovte: Michael Lavole

since it seems apparent he's not going to be around, and as others have mentioned, lynching an absent player isn't really the point here. 

[Daniel Lucas]

Just now, Vincent Denis said:

Hmmmmm...this reminds me of the time we were infiltrated by pirates and three soldiers named Robert, Paul and Reginald got into a dust up early on. As it turned out, the one in the middle, Paul ended up being the scum. Which one of Andrew, Justin and Daniel is Paul? I think it may be Justin. I'd like to hear from Andrew first before switching my vote, though.

Well well, I did see a pattern. How surprising you've seen one as well, dear Vincent. Let's see:

Your analogy of historical situations is quite wrong. Those three you mentioned were arguing against each other if my memory serves me correctly, and believe me, it does. Now the three present gentleman you are trying to project this is the two poke voter and my humble self. The only problem that I vote for you at the moment.

4 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

 They're referring to me looking at Andrew so closely which isn't scummy. It's what we're supposed to do.

Interesting, you are looking closely indeed. But it seems they did not like me looking closely at you. For some reason they seem to have found some kind of quality difference between the two.

6 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

I think it may be Justin. I'd like to hear from Andrew first before switching my vote, though.

I'm honored that you don't think it is me. No, instead you are thinking to switch for the other poke voter. You would just abandon a poke voter for another. This clearly shows how seriously you took an initial poke vote.

My vote on you stands.

[Vincent Denis]

Just now, Daniel Lucas said:

This clearly shows how seriously you took an initial poke vote.

*Fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom*

What?

*Fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom*

[Andrew Laurent]

Now, since my first poke vote got people talking.... 

Vote: Alex Howe

Why? Let me counteth the reasons.

1. I unvoted without placing a new vote

2. Someone is already voting for Joshua, the least-talkative member of this hunt other than Michael.

3. There's a bunch of people who have only posted a couple times, and out of those, Alex was the first alphabetically. 

4. And when I then looked at his sparse activity, it's been entirely first day nonsense. That seems like a scum tactic to me - post just enough to be "here" but don't risk taking any position or saying anything memorable. 

[Daniel Lucas]

Just now, Vincent Denis said:

*Fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom*

What?

*Fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom*

Don't you think it is interesting that after you've argued so so much (which was the cause of me calling you forced and pushing) against Andrew, you're just so eager to say you think Justing IS the scum from the three of us? You were reminded of three previous players and you just built upon this thought instantly. Also why their similar preference to day 1 lynching has anything nothing to do with Robert, Reginald and Paul? This is not very consistent train of thought, more like a tool you've just trying to project a narrative into. And again Robert, Reginald and Paul were accusing each other. How it become similar Andrew, Justin and me? You can point out someone as scum from the three of us, that's how.

For the record I am not defending the two poke voters, I'm accusing you. There is a difference. Also I did point out that Aiden and Alex did come seemingly (and quite synchronised) to your aid with obviously less arguments that I've contributed. I find it interesting that they've discarded what I've said about you quite easily and - surely by chance - going after the very two people you were focusing to.

And again, you just said you would wait for Andrew until switching to Justin. But what could Andrew possibly provide you which would be any different that Justin is going to give you as well? You clearly don't give a damn about the poke votes themselves.

[Vincent Denis]

1 minute ago, Andrew Laurent said:

That seems like a scum tactic to me - post just enough to be "here" but don't risk taking any position or saying anything memorable. 

*Fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom*

This seems more reasonable. I find poke votes for people who haven't posted utterly stupid and the way you and Justin are rooster-strutting over your votes like you deserve a medal is comical. I'm much more for rooting up those who are flying under the radar. This seems to be where they hide in anonymous games or games with no PMs. I can chalk up my ping over what seemed like fishing as a difference in communication. It seemed pushy. Maybe you're just pushy. I'm considering you may be less scummy and more, what the French call "douche´."  

With a side eye on him, 

Unvote: Andrew Laurent

Vote: Justin Reynauld

For parroting Andrew, for placing a poke vote which could be a scum picking an inactive player as a safe place to vote and seem active, for nonsensically keeping his vote there like it's single-handedly causing all discussion and for deflecting the concerns raised against him. I'm summarizing because someone in the last game requested we do that when voting instead of just dropping a vote. (Or you could just read everything-)

*Fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom*

[Jean Pelley]

Monsieur Remi gave me une petit merde over my reasoning for voting for Justin, but j'observe it again so let me explain more fully. It appears to me there is an effort to spread votes among the less active members of notre garrison. Andrew in particular has placed two poke votes, first for Michael with this rationale for picking Michael over Joshua:

On 4/5/2020 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Laurent said:

I did a simple coin flip to choose between Michael and Joshua.

And now he's voted for Alex, citing (among others) this reason for choosing Alex over anyone else:

12 minutes ago, Andrew Laurent said:

There's a bunch of people who have only posted a couple times, and out of those, Alex was the first alphabetically. 

It's like Andrew is going through the motions of "being concerned" over inactivity while making his choices in a characteristically inconsequential fashion — and to me this smells of making up reasons to vote for a townie over someone else. After all, if his vote contributes to the lynch of a townie, he can just say "well shucks they weren't very inactive anyway and besides the alphabet told me to do it." Andrew isn't the only member of the Professionally Concerned Due Diligence Brigade — let me take you back to the post that prompted my vote for Justin:

On 4/5/2020 at 8:24 PM, Justin Reynaud said:

Since he has already voted for Michael, I will vote for Joshua.

It's like it hardly matters at all who actually gets the votes as long as Andrew and Justin raise a little rabble over this notion of inactivity and opportunistically cast the votes around. And Andrew provided almost the exact same reason to justify his vote for Alex:

21 minutes ago, Andrew Laurent said:

Someone is already voting for Joshua

like wtf, make up your own mind. Vote like it's important. Stop being so goddamn performative about it.

And actually Vincent already remarked on it, but Tweedledum and Tweedledee Andrew and Justin had essentially the exact same thing to say about a day one lynch:

On 4/5/2020 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Laurent said:

I think a day 1 lynch is vital.

On 4/5/2020 at 8:24 PM, Justin Reynaud said:

I think a day 1 lynch is critical.

Cut this bullshit Dupond et Dupont clown show. Stop writing like high schoolers equipped with Wikipedia and a thesaurus. Vote for someone you actually think is scummy.

Sacre bleu!

[Vincent Denis]

Just now, Daniel Lucas said:

Don't you think it is interesting that after you've argued so so much (which was the cause of me calling you forced and pushing) against Andrew, you're just so eager to say you think Justing IS the scum from the three of us? You were reminded of three previous players and you just built upon this thought instantly. Also why their similar preference to day 1 lynching has anything nothing to do with Robert, Reginald and Paul? This is not very consistent train of thought, more like a tool you've just trying to project a narrative into. And again Robert, Reginald and Paul were accusing each other. How it become similar Andrew, Justin and me? You can point out someone as scum from the three of us, that's how.

For the record I am not defending the two poke voters, I'm accusing you. There is a difference. Also I did point out that Aiden and Alex did come seemingly (and quite synchronised) to your aid with obviously less arguments that I've contributed. I find it interesting that they've discarded what I've said about you quite easily and - surely by chance - going after the very two people you were focusing to.

And again, you just said you would wait for Andrew until switching to Justin. But what could Andrew possibly provide you which would be any different that Justin is going to give you as well? You clearly don't give a damn about the poke votes themselves.

*Fwom fwom fwomma fwom fwom*

Justin pinged me yesterday and I pointed it out so I'm no pivoting or creating a narrative, I'm looking at new information and responding to it. Again, this is what we're supposed to do. You apparently don't think we should. You think we should think one thing forever and not let new information change our minds. When we get an investigation result that someone who everyone had thought to be a townie is in fact scum are you going to quote everyone who trusted that person and call them scummy for voting for the person with the scum investigation result? Our reading people's words and reacting to them is as powerful a tool as our night actions. Aiden and Alex could be seen as defending me. Do I trust them because they told you they disagree with your read? Absolutely not. It's a good place for scum to hide, the peacekeeper between two townies arguing (if you are, in fact, a townie). I noted that. Does it ping me? Yes. Does it ping me as hard as Justin? No. Especially since they seem to be attempting to be productive and point out to you that you're discouraging people from playing the game correctly. 

And yes, in Pirates 2, Paul and Reginald and Robert were accusing each other and you, Justin and Andrew are not. From my perspective in that game there were three people who drew attention to themselves and I thought "are these three townies or is one or more of them scum?" and then looked at their words and actions from there. It turned out one of them was scum and had he not claimed vanilla he was doing a pretty job as seeming to be working for the town. It reminds me of that because there are three people, from my perspective-Andrew, Justin and you-who have drawn attention to themselves and I'm wondering which one is scum. In Pirates 2, it was Paul who kind of stumbled into the middle of it. Who stumbled into the middle of this? Justin. It's the weakest reason of all to suspect Justin, but I felt it, so I mentioned it in case it was helpful to someone else. It's not helpful to you. Fine.

And yes, I find poke votes scummy. Does that mean I think every poke vote is made by scum? No. Nuances seem to completely escape you. Perhaps you don't realize the complexity of the human brain and how curiosity and searching can spark thought, but that's the process I go through when hunting scum. I could ask Alexa about the literal synapse process if it will help answer all of your questions about my evolving opinion.

*Fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwoooooom!

5 minutes ago, Jean Pelley said:

Cut this bullshit Dupond et Dupont clown show. Stop writing like high schoolers equipped with Wikipedia and a thesaurus. Vote for someone you actually think is scummy.

Sacre bleu!

*Fwom fwomma-pffffffft    

Look out, Daniel. Jean's analysis of Justin and Andrew has re-upped my initial suspicions of Andrew. Weird how us voicing our analyses causes our viewpoint to change. Weird that you think playing the game is suspicious. I look forward to your wall of text response exclaiming how interesting it is that my thought process continues to evolve. 

*Fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwooooooooom*

[Daniel Lucas]

Just now, Vincent Denis said:

*Fwom fwom fwomma fwom fwom*

And yes, I find poke votes scummy. Does that mean I think every poke vote is made by scum? No. Nuances seem to completely escape you. Perhaps you don't realize the complexity of the human brain and how curiosity and searching can spark thought, but that's the process I go through when hunting scum. I could ask Alexa about the literal synapse process if it will help answer all of your questions about my evolving opinion.

*Fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwoooooom!

Fwooming around constantly and acting cocky does not serve you right with your statements. Also, you just wish nuances would've escaped me. If so, I would still not be voting for you.

Just now, Vincent Denis said:

Justin pinged me yesterday and I pointed it out so I'm no pivoting or creating a narrative, I'm looking at new information and responding to it.

Which is exactly what the poke voters were doing according to them. Practicall you've just poke voted the poke voter. Argued a lot about Andrew, but flipped to the next poke voter, Justin, like suddenly he would be a better scum candidate for some reason. You flip-flopped just as they've done so. You see, if you want nuances I'll give you one: You might convince me that "poke voting is scummy". If that's the case you are acting just the same. Only that the chaotic way you do this just give you the edge in my voting.

Again you are keep walking into your own accusing arguments.

 

[Vincent Denis]

2 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Fwooming around constantly and acting cocky does not serve you right with your statements. Also, you just wish nuances would've escaped me. If so, I would still not be voting for you.

Which is exactly what the poke voters were doing according to them. Practicall you've just poke voted the poke voter. Argued a lot about Andrew, but flipped to the next poke voter, Justin, like suddenly he would be a better scum candidate for some reason. You flip-flopped just as they've done so. You see, if you want nuances I'll give you one: You might convince me that "poke voting is scummy". If that's the case you are acting just the same. Only that the chaotic way you do this just give you the edge in my voting.

Again you are keep walking into your own accusing arguments.

 

*FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!*

If you think my votes are pokes, then we just view the world differently. 

*FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM FWOMMA FWOMMA FWOOMA FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM FWOM FWOM FWOMMA FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!*

[Fred Dumont]

5 hours ago, Peter Lyon said:

There's something odd about this interaction to me.  Dumont called for everyone to say what they felt about a no-lynch, but didn't give his opinion.  Then when called out (?) later, he "finds himself thinking" he wants a lynch.  Oh yeah, several people have already said they were for a lynch in rather clear terms.

Vote: Fred Dumont

I think you're just jealous of my beard, Peter. You've barely said anything and just vote, maybe trying to slide under the radar and look active.

[Daniel Lucas]

Just now, Vincent Denis said:

If you think my votes are pokes, then we just view the world differently. 

Exactly. That's why I'm voting for you if you haven't noticed.

Also, what are your votes if not pokes? Serious decisions? You already had two of them.

39 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

Unvote: Andrew Laurent

Vote: Justin Reynauld

For parroting Andrew, for placing a poke vote which could be a scum picking an inactive player as a safe place to vote and seem active, for nonsensically keeping his vote there like it's single-handedly causing all discussion and for deflecting the concerns raised against him. I'm summarizing because someone in the last game requested we do that when voting instead of just dropping a vote. (Or you could just read everything-)

*Fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom*

You gave reasons which were given already way before both of them said anything neww, while clearly you've tried to imply you were looking for new information. I don't think it is the case. You are not poke voting. You are flip-flop poke voting.

[Vincent Denis]

Just now, Daniel Lucas said:

You are flip-flop poke voting.

*Fwom fwomma fwom fwom*

No, I'm not.

*Fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwooooooooom fwoooooooom*

[Daniel Lucas]

Just now, Vincent Denis said:

*Fwom fwomma fwom fwom*

No, I'm not.

*Fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwooooooooom fwoooooooom*

Oh, my bad. Only that part is missing when answer and clarify what was your vote if not an empty poke as well. Since I'm bad with nuances let see again:

6 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

I read in our annals of a recent incursion on a clipper named The Enterprise, where the first poke vote was by scum and for scum. It's an easy place for scum to hide and look useful.

Very interesting! Oh wait...

51 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

For parroting Andrew, for placing a poke vote which could be a scum picking an inactive player as a safe place to vote and seem active,

So when you vote for Andrew, it is because you think it might be a scum for scum poke vote. But you flip to the other poke voter and now you accidendtaly not using the scum for scum scenario. You are saying Justin is scum picking an inactive to be safe placed. How is the first one was the scum for scum but the next one was not? Maybe because at this moment you'd fit into the scum for scum vote right away?

Convenient to forget your own argument in certain situations, isn't it?

 

[Vincent Denis]

Just now, Daniel Lucas said:

Oh, my bad. Only that part is missing when answer and clarify what was your vote if not an empty poke as well. Since I'm bad with nuances let see again:

Very interesting! Oh wait...

So when you vote for Andrew, it is because you think it might be a scum for scum poke vote. But you flip to the other poke voter and now you accidendtaly not using the scum for scum scenario. You are saying Justin is scum picking an inactive to be safe placed. How is the first one was the scum for scum but the next one was not? Maybe because at this moment you'd fit into the scum for scum vote right away?

Convenient to forget your own argument in certain situations, isn't it?

 

 

12 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

*Fwom fwomma fwom fwom*

47 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

And yes, I find poke votes scummy. Does that mean I think every poke vote is made by scum? No.

24 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

*FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!*

 

[Daniel Lucas]

51 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

And yes, I find poke votes scummy. Does that mean I think every poke vote is made by scum? No.

You have ALREADY voted for two of them. Also this is not even a reply to what I was refering to, I've pointed out the difference of your narrative for the very similar cases, not your tendency in taking poke voters scummy.

Also if you think poke vote is scummy why do you not always believe they are made by actual scums? Why is it scummy then? You mean scummy town? Or not-scum scummy? What are you talking about?

I'm using the word scummy for things I believe scums would do. Clearly you are not.