Pirates Mafia III - Day Three

[Daniel Lucas]

21 minutes ago, Peter Lyon said:

Fred came to you in the night to claim his role and you coordinated actions.  At this point, it seems that those were carried out, so there's no reason to think that he doesn't have the action.  That's true for both your and Andrew's blocking claims.  Everything appears to check out as far as the targets are concerned.

This was never denied. Not our roles are the potential lies but our actual alignment.

1 hour ago, Vincent Denis said:

I didn't target anyone successfully on N1.

1 hour ago, Emmett Ware said:

That does make sense, thank you.

Wait, what?? 

Andrew blocked Fred N1. Fred confirmed this. I jailed Alex. It means either you targeted Remi or you were blocked too. That'd be a 4th blocker. Fred's and Andrew's action were confirmed twice, because N2 Fred blocked Andrew back. They can't lie about it unless both of them is scum. No one else claimed blocker. I can lie about jailing Alex. But why would I not knowing his answer? Only if Alex is my scum buddy, but why would he not confirm me this way?

Unless:

You just targeted a deflector, like a muthafuckin' Ninja scum or you and Alex were swapped and I jailed you. But this would suggest a bus driver. Who did you target?

Why are you two, Emmett and Vincent just not sharing information, only conveniently reassuring each other? Emmett said he tracked me, but that is an obviously easy claim. It was already known. Even if I am scum I can't lie about jailing Robin, since I need to stay consistent. This makes it safe for Emmett to confirm me. From this information there is nothing that would tell us you are not playing together.

Also who did you target N2 Vincent?

[Emmett Ware]

4 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Why are you two, Emmett and Vincent just not sharing information, only conveniently reassuring each other?

I only have two results to go by. I was told that Vincent didn't target anyone and that you targeted Robin. There is no way I can determine if that means that Vincent was blocked or not, but he made a point of saying that he didn't successfully target anyone. which makes it sound like he was. From what I've read, it's a tossup as to how hosts will report those situations, just to avoid giving away too much information, so that isn't a great clue.

One of the reasons the Alex claim interested me so much is the possibility that Vincent could be either vanilla or passive. I still don't know.

It's a decent enough role, but it doesn't give me much to work with unless I get lucky and target a killer, which isn't exactly likely.

I don't see what else I can tell you here, that's all I've got.

[Vincent Denis]

*Fwom fwomma fwomma fwom*

1 hour ago, Peter Lyon said:

Fred came to you in the night to claim his role and you coordinated actions.  At this point, it seems that those were carried out, so there's no reason to think that he doesn't have the action.  That's true for both your and Andrew's blocking claims.  Everything appears to check out as far as the targets are concerned.

It would make sense for Fred, as scum, to claim blocker to Daniel and conveniently coordinate. Especially if they were confident they were killing the investigator since so many people have said it seemed like Jean had information, thus the reason for his insistence. 

1 hour ago, Peter Lyon said:

 One thing I will say about Alex, I think it's nonsense to say that him claiming his role explicitly stated he was vanilla is a violation of the rules.

^^This.^^ 100.

34 minutes ago, Alex Howe said:

While that is one way of viewing it, a more cynical person might suspect that you are setting things up to more easily lynch a blocker tomorrow once I flip town. 

Cynical? Seems like you are suspecting it. If you are, indeed, vanilla, and this isn't role madness, why do we have three blockers? I'm setting up a blocker for a lynch?? You yourself said we should be looking at the blockers. How are you then not doing the same thing. I've been suspicious of Andrew for three days. Finding his claim the least believable of our three blockers makes perfect sense to me. 

34 minutes ago, Alex Howe said:

I don't see the massive benefit of confirming whether this is role madness or not; regardless, one of the blockers can still be scum.  When I flip town, you will assume one is lying because it is not role madness.  If I were to flip scum, that doesn't mean they aren't lying though.  I think the two points are mutually exclusive.

So while I have no problem with being lynched if there is a clear benefit to the town,  I don't see confirming role madness or not as beneficial. You are welcome to make a case for it though, so perhaps you can forecast outcomes for: (a) I flip town and it is not role madness; or (b) I flip scum and it is confirmed as role madness.  The outcome of options (a) and (b) do not really have any impact on whether one of the blockers is lying, as a scum blocker would still claim to be a town blocker.  There is also still the possibility that they are indeed all town, that isn't off the table.  I don't see the connection between my role and proving anything against them, it is a weak benefit if anything at all.

It is a lot of assumptions to make based on the structure of a previous game, I would prefer to focus on what is going on in this one.

Yes! All true. This is probably why the wagon isn't shifting towards you because you're making salient points. Welcome to the game. You have to admit you weren't very active in the first two days and the fact that the discussion turning towards you as a viable lynch candidate seems to have wakened you. The switch in activity levels at that point is suspicious.

15 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Wait, what?? 

...

Also who did you target N2 Vincent?

One thing I do wish is that Emmett had revealed the result before I did. You told us who you targeted so he has that for himself already. If I had thought for a second, I wouldn't have answered. I blame the crow in my tuba for that. Right now we have no verification that his claims are true because we gave him the answer to his supposed targets. I've been going back and forth on Emmett but this now makes me wary. Again, he predicted the future with great accuracy via PM last night, something foolish for a scum to do, but, you know...WIFOM.

As for my role, discussing the specifics would negate what I see as the purpose of my role. I won't be claiming anything about my role other than that I have one.

*Fwom fwom fwomma fwom FWOOOOOOOOOOOOOMP* Oh, the rest of the crow finally came out. I didn't think I had all of it. *Fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom*

[Aiden Leon]

You know if you're a Godfather, doing what Alex is doing would be a good play. ? 

Man I'm so undecided on who I'd want to lynch. 

[Emmett Ware]

On 4/16/2020 at 2:35 PM, Emmett Ware said:

I have a role, it isn't particularly major, but it has given me little bits of information to work with. Not having any recent mafia experience, could anyone take a moment and explain some likely passive roles in a situation like this? Could Alex have a role, perform it, but still appear not to have one if they were investigated, observed, or in some other way checked out?

This was the very first thing I said today. I hinted at my role and then tried to get some advice on how to read Vincent's result without saying so directly. I'm not one for giving away too much, too soon. It's also why I revealed him as who I tracked but not the result, leaving that for him to choose. If he had lied, I would have had the opportunity to confront you on that, but he didn't (as far as I can tell without delving into game mechanics).

11 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

Again, he predicted the future with great accuracy via PM last night, something foolish for a scum to do, but, you know...WIFOM.

I felt certain that Joshua would turn up scum, that wasn't a massive prediction of the future. If I hadn't felt that way when I voted, I wouldn't have voted.

I don't recall predicting anything else.

[Daniel Lucas]

3 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

As for my role, discussing the specifics would negate what I see as the purpose of my role. I won't be claiming anything about my role other than that I have one.

Ohhhoookay, but as I've said it does not add up, unless I lie about jailing Alex, or you and Alex were swapped (not a single sign of any busdriver at the moment, considering N2 claims were right on) or you hit a Ninja deflector or something similar. Or there is a 4th blocker who had not claimed since. And you did not say you targeted Remi.

Emmett says he saw you not targeting anyone, but that's not what you've said. You said you didn't target anyone successfully. It's quite the implication you are not a passive role.

So I'm not sure I see the reason for your secrecy, because if you'd have targeted Justin for example, that'd totally suggest he is a ninja blocker and we should definitely lynch the f**k out of him at the spot. But why not saying that already?

Also if there is some kind of other scum active blocker without a claim out there (hard to believe it is not Andrew or Fred or Me already), this would be a pretty good time if someone could confirm Vincent or just give me another scenario about this.

Also it is a bit weird that Emmett's read was not seeing you targeting anyone. Either your unsuccessful attempt was reported back as "not targeting anyone" or one of you missed coordinating your info. I have a gut feeling that one of you lied just now. I may overlook something for sure, but help me out if you have anything. 

[Emmett Ware]

7 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Also it is a bit weird that Emmett's read was not seeing you targeting anyone. Either your unsuccessful attempt was reported back as "not targeting anyone" or one of you missed coordinating your info.

Weird or not, it is what it is. I can't put it in any other words that wouldn't be quoting Bob, it's just too few words to put any other way. I only have your result to compare it to, so that doesn't help either. As for coordinating, I've only had one private discussion with Vincent and did not discuss this matter at all, since he approached me and I wouldn't have any reason to trust him. Still don't. 

Oh, and to slightly correct your statement, I wasn't told I didn't see him targeting anyone, I was told he didn't. Full stop.

[Daniel Lucas]

Yes, but you truly did not share your results before Vincent said his own version. Now we can't decide if you are just adjusting to known information or you were truly the Tracker. Only Vincent now revealed he actually targeted someone, while clearly he did not want to. I'm very interested why Vincent said that on the other hand.

How should we take this, if Emmett would've said first you targeted no one, you'd have said publicly, saying "Yes, Emmett tells the truth, I was not targeting anyone."? That'd have been a lie.

[Vincent Denis]

*Fwom fwom fwom fwom*

1 hour ago, Daniel Lucas said:

So I'm not sure I see the reason for your secrecy,

Obviously. As for my role, discussing the specifics would negate what I see as the purpose of my role. I won't be claiming anything about my role other than that I have one. You actually don't need every question you have answered. Perhaps if it was night time or we could PM during the day, I could answer these questions. But I've said I won't be discussing it publicly and if you could try to show an ounce of respect that I might actually know what I'm doing and just be patient for once?

3 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Yes, but you truly did not share your results before Vincent said his own version. Now we can't decide if you are just adjusting to known information or you were truly the Tracker. Only Vincent now revealed he actually targeted someone, while clearly he did not want to. I'm very interested why Vincent said that on the other hand.

How should we take this, if Emmett would've said first you targeted no one, you'd have said publicly, saying "Yes, Emmett tells the truth, I was not targeting anyone."? That'd have been a lie.

How should we take a hypothetical that ends up with me telling a lie and is no reflection on anything I've actually done? Um...I don't know...as a hypothetical that ends up with me telling a lie and is no reflection on anything I've actually done? If the new scum tell is arousing your suspicion on page three of day one then scum in future games will probably try not to even post on page three of day one. 

I'm not scum. It's a little tiring with you saying "I think I might finally be seeing that Vincent can be town" in one breath and in the next continuing to pick apart everything I say and do. I can stand up to the scrutiny because I have nothing to hide. Except this: I don't want the scum to know what my role is. Nothing I've learned at night has any implication towards anybody as scum yet, otherwise, I'd reveal it. Or, like Jean, I'd push for a specific lynch. Or I'd be more subtle than Jean since it got him killed. My role is much more effective if the scum don't know what I do. Ask all the questions you want answered, I won't answer them publicly. I have a role. I didn't successfully target anybody on night one. Period.

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

[Emmett Ware]

1 minute ago, Vincent Denis said:

How should we take a hypothetical that ends up with me telling a lie and is no reflection on anything I've actually done? Um...I don't know...as a hypothetical that ends up with me telling a lie and is no reflection on anything I've actually done? If the new scum tell is arousing your suspicion on page three of day one then scum in future games will probably try not to even post on page three of day one. 

Don't bother, he's now made it clear that no matter which of us had said it first, he isn't going to believe it.

[Daniel Lucas]

Just now, Vincent Denis said:

Obviously. As for my role, discussing the specifics would negate what I see as the purpose of my role. I won't be claiming anything about my role other than that I have one. You actually don't need every question you have answered. Perhaps if it was night time or we could PM during the day, I could answer these questions. But I've said I won't be discussing it publicly and if you could try to show an ounce of respect that I might actually know what I'm doing and just be patient for once?

Yes. But should we expect any other answer if you are scum? No one said you don't know what you are doing. That is the problem, that I'm completely aware you are doing everything intentionally.

10 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

My role is much more effective if the scum don't know what I do.

To be honest after so many roleclaims and this sentence of yours, if you are not actually scum, The Scum have already figured out you have some very useful, possible a detective role. The Scum are not lambs. Why would you even just suggest this out loud if you wanted to avoid the attention? 

2 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

How should we take a hypothetical that ends up with me telling a lie and is no reflection on anything I've actually done?

I just asked. This is a totally valid question. If Emmett would've revealed you did not target anyone, you should have had to say something to it. If you would not reveal you have actually targeted anyone, we now know for a fact that would've been not the truth. But if you was ready to tell the truth all the same, why is the openly voiced regret? It wasn't me who forced that out of you. I've never even pushed you for any roleclaim before.

2 minutes ago, Vincent Denis said:

I'm not scum. It's a little tiring with you saying "I think I might finally be seeing that Vincent can be town" in one breath and in the next continuing to pick apart everything I say and do.

I'm not picking apart everything. Stop the self-pity act. Like just one information could not change anything. You leaned town on Emmett all day, now you've become "wary" of him. You can do it, but I can not? I'm claimed Jailer, thank you very much, I suspect anyone who I just want to. What are you?

You just confessed you have a role which you used unsuccessfully. I guess you had to because you was not sure what Emmett has saw. Obviously you thought this is not the time to tell any lies. But you said after you have regretted telling so much, because Emmett's answer could've let you to only confess the "not targeting" part. You are the one who even brought the attention with your regret.

Also why do you think we should not ask about anything which is unclear? I was not picking on you for a long time now, because there was no reason to. Now I see you are hiding something. You may have your reasons, but we don't see anything which would make you unquestionable. Why would we just stay silent and accept you are serving Town without a doubt? I just pointed out that either you was blocked or you hit a deflector if you are telling the truth. I asked for any other scenario you can think of, because I actually felt you may be some PR. But you just said it out loud to the public, that your role is better to be hidden. Like the Scum would've really needed to hear that.

Just now, Emmett Ware said:

Don't bother, he's now made it clear that no matter which of us had said it first, he isn't going to believe it.

WHERE did I make it clear? REALLY? How are you not concerned about this? What am I'm not believing? There is not even a statement so far to believe.

God, how do you know he is no scum? Stop being such great buddies with allegedly no information about each other! You just said yourself you had no discussion with him about this privately so you shouldn't know anything more than I do. He just revealead he has a role. It is not my mistake. I only asked you to reveal who you targeted, since you was the one who claimed to prove you are not the scum who helped Joshua. I unvoted, now how do I am not able to believe things? Should I have known your target was Vincent, and should I have known he is town's unquestionable champion who should never been asked of anything? What the actual f***?

Stop asking like I'd be anti-town for reacting to new information. This implication that you are some sort of covert, black-ops town block and we should just leave you alone is ridiculous. These are the information we have and I have my questions. End of story.

[Andrew Laurent]

21 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

Yeah, about that. Is this a repeat of the last game where the scum are the quiet ones and all of us townies are screaming at each other at pointing paranoid fingers at each other while the scum are like "Ha, ha. dummies." Alex, Trenton, Peter, Fabien? We have 50 blockers and the random claim of a limited use "knight."  And a bunch of us claiming "role" or "minor role." We have three blockers for a reason. Would the town have three blockers in a game that isn't role madness? If we believe Alex's weird vanilla claim, why aren't we looking these gift blockers in the mouth? Or are they blocker horses? 

This. This is what I've been saying all along. I think the most talkative (Vincent, Jean, Daniel, Aiden) are town and the scum are sitting back quietly hiding. And I severely question Alex's vanilla claim. I can't fathom that being true - unless his role is actually scum Godfather. In which case he'd almost HAVE to claim vanilla and beg for trust like he's been doing. A godfather investigates as town, but has no other ability. So he has to claim vanilla in case people tracked him or rolecop him. I can't come up with a better explanation. Even going with an Occam's razor logic, I'd have to say that godfather is the simpler explanation than to believe that in an apparent role madeness game, 1 person is left as a vanilla. 

So yeah, Vote: Alex Howe

4 hours ago, Daniel Lucas said:

• I voiced my theory about Emmett being the scum. He claimed, and there is no information yet which would prove him wrong. But Tracker can be Scum too.

Yes, tracker can be scum. But in a role madness game, a scum tracker role is useless. There's VERY little to be learned just seeing who someone visited when you already know both alignments. Scum tracker is only really useful in a normal game to try and discover who HAS a role. Likewise, scum watcher or voyeur are pretty useless. This makes me think that either Emmett is the scum killer and making up a lie about his role (which doesn't work, unless he and Vincent are scum together and making a sloppy in-thread agreement... which now that I think about it, could be accurate since they can't day-PM to coordinate claims) or he is truly town. And since I have said all along that I think Vincent is town, then I have to conclude that Emmett is as well. So for now, Emmett is in my loyal column. 

4 hours ago, Peter Lyon said:

As for Alex... I'd rather still vote for Justin at this point.  One thing I will say about Alex, I think it's nonsense to say that him claiming his role explicitly stated he was vanilla is a violation of the rules.  If so, you can argue that anyone stating their role publicly is violating quoting the host.  I just don't think that's the point of that rule.  Conversely, you could say that the lack of a punishment would indicate he's lying.  That would seem to break the game, IMO.

Yep, confirming the title of your role isn't a violation of the rules IMHO. Just like claiming blocker or vanillaizer isn't. The point of the rule is to prevent people trying to catch scum by asking them to quote the PM, since they're usually copy and pasted. The phrases used would be all the same in town PMs. 

3 hours ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Andrew blocked Fred N1. Fred confirmed this. I jailed Alex. It means either you targeted Remi or you were blocked too. That'd be a 4th blocker. Fred's and Andrew's action were confirmed twice, because N2 Fred blocked Andrew back. They can't lie about it unless both of them is scum. No one else claimed blocker. I can lie about jailing Alex. But why would I not knowing his answer? Only if Alex is my scum buddy, but why would he not confirm me this way?

Unless:

You just targeted a deflector, like a muthafuckin' Ninja scum or you and Alex were swapped and I jailed you. But this would suggest a bus driver. Who did you target?

Why are you two, Emmett and Vincent just not sharing information, only conveniently reassuring each other? Emmett said he tracked me, but that is an obviously easy claim. It was already known. Even if I am scum I can't lie about jailing Robin, since I need to stay consistent. This makes it safe for Emmett to confirm me. From this information there is nothing that would tell us you are not playing together.

Also who did you target N2 Vincent?

Man, I really hope we don't have a deflector/bus driver/redirect to deal with. But since V won't tell us who he targeted, what if he targeted Alex? Would alex being jailed make it appear that Vincent didn't go anywhere to Emmett? I don't think it should, since it should mean that V traveled to Alex and was unsuccessful, but Emmett should still see the attempt. Or what if one of the people not yet claiming is a commuter - someone who self-protects by "leaving town" at night? That WOULD make V appear not to have done anything while he'd get an unsuccessful result. However, it'd also mean yet another defensive role for us. 

[Emmett Ware]

1 hour ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Yes, but you truly did not share your results before Vincent said his own version.

*snip*

How should we take this, if Emmett would've said first you targeted no one, you'd have said publicly, saying "Yes, Emmett tells the truth, I was not targeting anyone."? That'd have been a lie.

Or, he could have told the truth. Who knows? I sure didn't know what to expect, which is yet another reason why I didn't go first. The fact that his claim fits what I knew gives me a little more faith in him, but believe me, it isn't much. Either one of you could be scum and I'm not going to know it unless you'd killed someone in the night.

14 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

WHERE did I make it clear? REALLY? How are you not concerned about this? What am I'm not believing? There is not even a statement so far to believe.

You say you doubt me because I didn't go first, but if I had, you immediately say he would have lied. How does that not make it clear? You just want someone to argue with because, so far in this game, the only thing you've produced is volume, no actual substance.

15 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Stop being such great buddies with allegedly no information about each other!

To a very few people, this will be the funniest thing you've said all game.

[Vincent Denis]

*Fwom fwomma fwom fwom*

23 hours ago, Fabien Bellamy said:

I will tentatively label Robin as possibly Town, given that he was blocked last night.

Tentatively label him as possibly Town? Do you have all of those columns cross-referencing? Do you have a tentatively-definitely column? Or a permanently-possibly column? Sounds forced. Robin's not the killer from N2. His other actions don't give him the benefit of tentatively being considered possibly town.

7 hours ago, Alex Howe said:

Given that I know my own claim is true, I feel we should be scrutinising the role claims a bit more intensely.  The scum are hiding somewhere, either behind a fake role or claiming their real scum role and pretending to be town. 

OK. Let's think about this some more. You're still the only person who appears to be vanilla. If the other three players who haven't claimed at all are also vanilla, you think just one of them would come to your defense, wouldn't you? Maybe you were really busy before you made your claim and didn't play or pay attention to the last game. Maybe the scum tore you a new one last night for claiming vanilla and now you're finally playing to try to make up for it. A few hours ago I said your posts were making sense, but these points keep getting to me. Maybe you just screwed up. I agree the scum are probably ready with role claims this time, but maybe you somehow missed the memo. You seem a lot smarter and more useful than you did days one and day two which could indicate you were trying to fly under the radar, then whoops! didn't realize this might be role madness. I can't imagine all of the non-claimers are scum.

That would be a big scum team. But I'd bet the scum would at least wait to make their claims until they started seeing other claims in-thread to make sure they didn't bump right up against a valid town claim. Safe to claim blocker when you know who's being blocked and there were three town blocking actions in the last game. Lots of maybes, I know. They're just flowing out of me. I think there are more but I think we can all get the gyst of how we should be viewing this. 

If there are other vanilla townies, is there a reason anyone can think of why one wouldn't have piped up? The scum know if Alex is telling the truth or not. Are some of these non-claimers scum just waiting to see if another vanilla townie will clarify and give them further cover and ability to join in on the claim game?

If we have three claimed blockers, they should coordinate after sundown to block the three who haven't claimed: Peter, Fabien, Trenton. 

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

[Daniel Lucas]

4 minutes ago, Emmett Ware said:

You say you doubt me because I didn't go first, but if I had, you immediately say he would have lied. How does that not make it clear? You just want someone to argue with because, so far in this game, the only thing you've produced is volume, no actual substance.

I say I have no reason not to doubt you. And yes, I say if you you would've gone first he would have briefly said "I confirm what Emmett says is true". What you say is true, or more explicitly "Yes Emmett, I did not target anyone" or even saying the same, that "I tell you more Emmett, I targeted someone just unsuccessfully, but you could not see that because I was blocked". Only the last one would have been the truth.

Saying that he confirms what you say is true is implying that he indeed had no target. We know it is not true. Saying explicitly that he did not target would've been a direct lie. The first one is almost acceptable for an important Town Role, indeed. But if someone would ask for clarification he would have needed to actually lie, telling us he is a passive role.

I'm not saying Vincent would have lied. I'm only saying he voiced his regret telling the truth and I have to point out he had no other scenario which he would have not been a liar. He needed to tell the truth. So I don't get this regret speech.

3 minutes ago, Emmett Ware said:

To a very few people, this will be the funniest thing you've said all game.

Means what? You are telegraphing your alignment with metagaming? 

[Emmett Ware]

9 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Means what? You are telegraphing your alignment with metagaming? 

It means that anyone who knows EB Mafia would know better.

[Daniel Lucas]

18 minutes ago, Emmett Ware said:

It means that anyone who knows EB Mafia would know better.

Know what? That you are always playing against each other? Is this a joke? You know what, I don't care. Before this thing blows up into another forum war:

Vote: Alex Howe

[Trenton Monette]

8 hours ago, Alex Howe said:

.

So while I have no problem with being lynched if there is a clear benefit to the town,  I don't see confirming role madness or not as beneficial.

I don't see this "I don't mind if I'm lynched" is helpful. If you are indeed a vanilla then having 3 blockers makes less sense than if it was role madness. But if you're scum it still doesn't change the fact we have 3 blockers. 

However I agree with Peter. It is absolutely preposterous to suggest that he is breaking a rule by claiming vanilla. By this logic everyone who has claimed has broken a rule. 

[Daniel Lucas]

1 minute ago, Trenton Monette said:

However I agree with Peter. It is absolutely preposterous to suggest that he is breaking a rule by claiming vanilla. By this logic everyone who has claimed has broken a rule. 

We meant the statement that he explicitly read Vanilla. It was suggestive, like we shouldn't even question that, since it is coming from Bob. Well duh.

[Fabien Bellamy]

8 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

If we have three claimed blockers, they should coordinate after sundown to block the three who haven't claimed: Peter, Fabien, Trenton.

I don't mind being blocked if that will prove that I'm not the killer. Moreover, if you think that Alex is Scum because of his vanilla claim, then he can't be the killer either.

[Justin Reynaud]

Based on everything said so far today, I find Robin and Emmett far more scummy than Alex. I think his Vanilla claim is extremely suspicious. And the idea that he could be Godfather seems like the most plausible explanation. However, I don't want to discount the possibility that there are a few who have claimed roles and lied about it. Even Vincent was saying we should be wary of assuming role-madness based off his supposed PM conversation with Bob. But, the overall evidence is certainly against him.

By voting on Alex now I put the votes tied between him and myself. If Alex and Robin are scum, that puts Robin in a tough spot. Does he switch votes to avoid killing a fellow scum? Or does he ride it out? If Emmett is scum, does he switch later in the day to make him look more helpful as a townie? Of course this all gets flipped on its head if Alex is town. WIFOM, I know. But worth analyzing I think.

Unvote: Robin Tremblay

Vote: Alex Howe

[Daniel Lucas]

42 minutes ago, Fabien Bellamy said:

Moreover, if you think that Alex is Scum because of his vanilla claim, then he can't be the killer either.

We don't know that. Killer is an additional role and if Joshua was the one before, some other scum got the part. Alex was only blocked at N1 as far as we know. He can be the killer now.

Also can be a Godfather, but he is rather silent for that one. I just don't like him not talking at all, not saying anything exact. Has he actually ever taken a vote? On Robin right? For voting on Michael. Oh man.

[Vincent Denis]

*Fwom fwomma fwomma fwom*

Unvote: Justin Reynaud

Vote: Alex Howe

He hasn't really been helpful or even active until we started discussing lynching him. The biggest ping I've gotten from him was this interchange, forgive me for writing a play as opposed to finding the quotes:

Alex: Since I know I'm vanilla, we should look more closely at these three blockers.

Vincent: If you are vanilla, we will look more closely at the three blockers. I suspect Andrew.

Alex: Sounds like you're trying to set up a blocker for a lynch!

 Um, yeah? That's also what you were suggesting and what any of us would suggest. This sounds like he's playing from duel perspectives; defend himself and implicate a townie, but the reasons contradict each other.

I'm still suspicious of Justin. 

I also want to keep a record of who targeted who because I'm finding it hard to remember since they are mostly blocks, targeting each other.

N1
Emmett (tracker) targeted Vincent, result: didn't target anyone
Fred (blocker) targeted Peter Lyon, result: unsuccessful
Andrew (vanilllaizser) targeted Fred, result: successful
Daniel (jailkeeper) targeted Alex, result: successful

N2
Emmett (tracker) targeted Daniel, result: targeted Robin
Fred (blocker) targeted Andrew, result: successful
Andrew (vanilllaizser) targeted Fabien, result: unsuccessful
Daniel (jailkeeper) targeted Robin, result: successful
Robin (knight???) targeted Vincent, result: unsuccessful

Am I correct here? The oddest claim is Robin's. Robin, can you clarify for us what your role does and how often you can use it? You're a knight, what?

People who didn't kill on N1: Emmett, Vincent, Fred, Peter, Andrew, Daniel, Alex
People who didn't kill on N2: Emmett, Daniel, Fred, Andrew, Daniel, Robin

If Daniel publicly claimed blocker, why would the scum not block him? I suppose they ran the risk of being caught by a watcher. Or their blocker contacted him to coordinate. Alex will say I'm "setting up a lynch" of a blocker. I'm not. I'm inviting scrutiny of some of these claims. Alex is right about one thing, even if he is scum, we should still be scrutinizing claims as the rest of the scum would've been prepared for this. Perhaps their coordination was hindered by the no-PM rule. We are also hindered by it as some of us can't be explicit about our roles in public. I find myself in the dangerous territory of only scrutinizing the role claims. I need to go back and look at everyone's behavior to try to get a full picture.

*Fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwom fwom*

[Alex Howe]

It seems the consensus is swinging towards lynching me as being a helpful way to more thoroughly scrutinise the role claims, so I suppose I must go along with it.  However, as a word of warning, I think people are getting too caught up in trying to outsmart the host by guessing the structure of the game based on metagaming so I would urge you all to be thorough but cautious tomorrow when I flip town.  My best guess is that there are indeed a lot of roles, possibly I could even be the only vanilla townie, or one of perhaps two if Michael happened to be vanilla as well.  It does seem odd with so many blocker-type claims, but here we are.

For what it is worth, I'll Vote: Fred Dumont, based on his voting pattern.  I think tomorrow it would be worth analysing carefully the people that pushed to vote for me without actually committing to it as well.  Emmett's tracker role claim was surprising but certainly more believable than the number of blocker claims, although it would be interesting to hear his result first tomorrow before any other results are reported, to test his findings.

I find the Fred/Andrew relationship interesting.  Fred coordinated blocking last night with Daniel, and conveniently cleared Andrew of being the killer. Notice Fred and Andrew have each targeted each other, such that they are validating each other's claims but nobody else is validating them.  I think everyone should take careful note of who they block tonight and who else other than them is able to validate their claims.  Perfectly conceivable that they could both be scum.  Blocker claims are very easy to hide behind for a few days, which is long enough to thin out town number sufficiently to grab a win.  It is very easy to report a successful or unsuccessful block against a fellow scum team mate, and one of them could be a scum blocker and block a townie to try and get independent validation.  Take careful note.

Just now, Vincent Denis said:

If Daniel publicly claimed blocker, why would the scum not block him? I suppose they ran the risk of being caught by a watcher. Or their blocker contacted him to coordinate. Alex will say I'm "setting up a lynch" of a blocker. I'm not. I'm inviting scrutiny of some of these claims. Alex is right about one thing, even if he is scum, we should still be scrutinizing claims as the rest of the scum would've been prepared for this. Perhaps their coordination was hindered by the no-PM rule. We are also hindered by it as some of us can't be explicit about our roles in public. I find myself in the dangerous territory of only scrutinizing the role claims. I need to go back and look at everyone's behavior to try to get a full picture.

I still don't follow the logic that the rest of the scum were prepared with claims but I was not.  If I were scum, my scum buddies would have prepared me with a claim.  They do get to talk to each other and they will have planned ahead.  I'd like people to take note of this tomorrow when I flip town.  Note how Vincent states that everyone who has claimed is not a killer.  I can pretty much guarantee that somewhere in that little web of role claims, there is very likely someone from the scum team lurking, so I would not discount a deceitful role claim that is hiding the killer.

In closing, as far as not being hugely present, I did set out with high hopes of engaging with everyone, hopes which were very swiftly crushed by the incredibly long and unnecessary posting that went on in Day 1 and also in Day 2.  By the end of Day 2 I will admit I had somewhat given up on being able to contribute anything without being immediately pounced on by the same two people as was happening time and time again.  There comes a point where one needs to tone down the volume of posting in order to allow other people the chance to contribute and be heard.  Sure I am one of the quieter ones, I admit that and I was particularly caught up in other commitments the past week unfortunately, but with two people on 120 and 168 posts each and the majority of other players on 20 to 40 posts each, some more some less, the difference in volume is extremely noticeable.  If the two biggest posters are indeed town, I would encourage them to consider how other townies like myself struggle to make sense of the discussion when it is difficult to break in and be heard.

[Peter Lyon]

 

16 hours ago, Daniel Lucas said:

This was never denied. Not our roles are the potential lies but our actual alignment.

My point was that we don't have a 4th blocker claim, or any indication that players were blocked other than from the current three blockers.  That's one of the things that we needed to look for in the Emmett/Vincent interaction.  Vincent is saying he did not successfully target anyone, and that his role is sensitive enough to not want to share with the scum team.  If that's true, then he's  town and would likely be indicating that he was blocked from his action in order to offer us up the notion that there could be a 4th blocker out there.  He's not saying that, so if he's town, he doesn't think there's a 4th blocker.  If he's lying about it and is scum, then it's a nice place to hide.  Of course, in that case, a town blocker would've targeted him and let us know about it by now.  So there's probably no fourth blocker.

12 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

If there are other vanilla townies, is there a reason anyone can think of why one wouldn't have piped up? The scum know if Alex is telling the truth or not. Are some of these non-claimers scum just waiting to see if another vanilla townie will clarify and give them further cover and ability to join in on the claim game?

If we have three claimed blockers, they should coordinate after sundown to block the three who haven't claimed: Peter, Fabien, Trenton. 

Since it's relevant to Alex's lynch, I will say that I'm not vanilla.  I'll admit to being in a similar boat to Vincent in that I believe my role is better kept out of scum's knowledge.  I understand that the same caveat I gave to Vincent being scum would apply to me... it is a nice place to hide if needed, but so be it.  I would argue that the folks who haven't confirmed their role or had another player suggest they can't be the killer are in the same group as Fabian, Trenton, and myself... unless we have a claim we can validate, we are all suspect of being the killer.

3 hours ago, Fabien Bellamy said:

Moreover, if you think that Alex is Scum because of his vanilla claim, then he can't be the killer either.

That's not true at all.  If he's claiming vanilla as scum, he can easily be the killer and just lying about it.  I hadn't previously considered the possibility he's Godfather, and that does make for a logical claim if you aren't thinking about the possibility of role madness.  It's entirely possible the scum team either didn't metagame the host or thought, "surely he wouldn't repeat the same thing".

Unvote: Justin Reynaud

Vote: Alex Howe