Pirates Mafia III - Day Three

[Justin Reynaud]

Oh boy, that tune changed real fast. Out of necessity, this is going to be a wall of text. But please read it! Here's what you said at the beginning of today:

21 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

This was the hammer. Reading it again, it seems less scummy than I remembered. Maybe just because it came from Justin and I think everything Justin says is scummy. The justification is what pings me. Did you not realize you were hammering? On the other hand, in favor of Justin, I don't see a scum hammering one of these words and being explicit about not thinking it's the right lynch. 

But then you followed up with this:

15 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

Mmmkay. So Justin and Andrew seem to be planting the subtle seeds for my lynching. Maybe I'm over-reacting (it's happened before) but they seem to be poking at me. Maybe it's because I'm constantly suspicious of them. If I were scum and wanted to push town towards a specific lynch, I'd be doing the same thing, I think. They know they have an ally in Daniel. The idea that my walls of texts are harder to read over than Daniel's I find ludicrous. Maybe they affect the readability of the threads the same way, but I've been consciously attempting to not throw books back at him. For Justin not to mention both of us in that case seems suspicious. Seems to me more like he's hiding behind Daniel's walls of texts–or both of ours–but hiding nonetheless.

What is this? How have I been planting lynch seeds for you? You say I seem to be poking you. How? You say I have an ally in Daniel, yet the two of you seem to working together quite nicely right now. If I were scum, I wouldn't count on Daniel to help me get you lynched at this point. I also never said your text walls were worse than Daniels. And then you claim I'm hiding behind text walls. All of these things are weak reasons, unless you are scum and are worried about heat being turned on you. My vote stayed on you all day for Day 2 for reasons like this. You ping so loud as scum! But Jean's trust in you has me doubting my instincts. So I've been moving forward today with the hopes that he was right and you are town. If I get lynched and flip town, my prediction is that scum will start a bandwagon on you. Unless you are scum. In which case the town may start a lynch and you'd point to this fact in the hopes of stopping them. Either way, you have played yourself into a nice, safe zone.

13 hours ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Fair enough, my PM intention for Vincent was to get a scum read as well, and him being totally hostile - with the still suspicious warning - kept feeding my theory of him. Maybe it should have been the other way around, considering he is quite the emotional one this game.

But why did you not respond?

You didn't give me anything to respond to. For those interested here's what he said:

My take away was that you didn't trust me enough to think I was town, and I didn't want to press the issue looking like an eager scum player. That's why I didn't respond.

9 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

*Fwoom fwoom*

My point is in favor of Alex being town. If he's scum, he should've been prepared to claim, like you clearly were. Yet, he didn't. This is a point that he is not scum, in that if we are mostly the same crew from the last game, he would know not to claim vanilla or "no action" if he were scum. If he's town and didn't want to reveal a role that would be inconsiderate to your claim, wouldn't it? The scum in the last game thought they'd win by coasting under the radar and not posting. Alex is barely posting, which is scummy, but could indicate he's actually busy. If the scum in the last game were caught for being inactive, the most suspicious to me are those being active by post count but not by content, like Justin.

Emmett is consistent in his suspicious of Daniel. He said the same to me last night and his reasoning is the same. This contrasts greatly to Justin, whose reads vary widely and seem convenient to circumstances.

Vote: Justin Reynauld 

because—let me count the ways:

1. Poke voting Joshua to seem active but not actually having a reason to do so. His reason was "to get everyone talking." How does a poke vote of one person get everyone talking. He's said he's had previous experience that a poke vote has gotten every player talking but when pressed, didn't provide examples. 
2. Not removing his vote from Joshua for the duel-reason of keeping people talking and not finding Joshua's posts sufficient. It can't be both.
3. For voicing suspicion about Joshua but never voicing the biggest concern that his posts didn't reflect reality: Saying Fred and Emmett were pushing for a no-lynch when they weren't. 
4. For telling us he didn't want Joshua lynched and then telling us that he did, despite us being able to see that he did say he wasn't in favor of the Joshua lynch. This after keeping his vote on Joshua throughout the duration of Day One.
5. For, supposedly, not knowing he was the hammer vote for Joshua. Oh, oops. I didn't realize.
6. For PMing Daniel to inquire about his suspicion of me, and then not responding, seeming to Daniel (as stated earlier today) that it was just an attempt to set up a wagon on me the next day. From what Daniel communicated to us, I agree with that. I feel his posts have also been pushing for an eventual lynch of me, and I know I'm town. 

Justin, I'm pretty sure you're scum so I'll place this vote now to give plenty chance to prove yourself. It's early enough in the day for you to convince us otherwise, or further show your scummy hand. Your vote on Joshua seems like bussing, even though you didn't even do that convincingly like you were afraid of pointing out his scummiest actions.

This one's for Justin: *Fwomma fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwom fwom fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma fwomma*

All of my songs are specific to real song rythms. I should start keeping a spreadsheet, because I'm starting to lack the ability to identify them when reading back...

What have I done that is convenient to circumstances? I've voiced my suspicions of you, Aiden, Alex, and Daniel at various points through Days 1 and 2. Risking the wrath of your text wall attacks. I've voted on the people I find scummy, not on the convenient bandwagons. So tell me, why do I ping you harder than Emmett?

Now, let me respond to your attacks:

Quote

1. Poke voting Joshua to seem active but not actually having a reason to do so. His reason was "to get everyone talking." How does a poke vote of one person get everyone talking. He's said he's had previous experience that a poke vote has gotten every player talking but when pressed, didn't provide examples.

You claim I poke voted  to "seem active." I've already laid out how I have been active, not just seeming to be so. Why are you twisting this? Here's what I said to you before:

On 4/11/2020 at 9:31 AM, Justin Reynaud said:

On 4/10/2020 at 5:33 PM, Vincent Denis said:

Justin, I asked you questions at the end of day 1 and I'd appreciate a response that goes beyond "I got people talking," please. 

Here is what you said at the end of day 1:

On 4/8/2020 at 1:52 PM, Vincent Denis said:

That's not what you originally said. You said you agreed with Andrew's reasoning and Andrew's reasoning was that the poke vote gets the person being voted for to start talking. I've already laid this point out for you and you ignored it. If you've been eating popcorn and supposedly reading what's happened between Daniel and me, why'd you ignore the points I made about your behavior when I voted for you?

My original and follow up reason for poke-voting was to get data, i.e. people talking so we could analyse what they said later. Here's the specific comment I made first:

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

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 don't understand what else you want. The point I made was talking is good. The point you are laying out is that I said getting people to talk is good. Where is the disagreement? All of this insistence on getting answers to questions I've already answered is a great scum play to make a townie look guilty.You, Vincent, ping very hard as scum to me.

I followed up with this:

On 4/11/2020 at 11:35 AM, Justin Reynaud said:

I voted for Joshua as a poke to get conversation started. In many previous games pokes have caused debate among many people, not just the one poked. People started talking which was exactly the point, I've stated this many times. Joshua started talking, but not much. I left my vote on him (as I stated at the time) because he was still being really quiet. Because lurking can be a sign of a scum player or a sign of a scared townie I assumed that a more relevant reason to vote for someone would present itself before the day was over. And it did. 

He still hasn't said much, so I'm still suspicious of him. But lots of players are being too quiet right now.

And I did answer you about poke votes helping: 

On 4/13/2020 at 3:47 PM, Justin Reynaud said:

On 4/11/2020 at 1:40 PM, Vincent Denis said:

*Fwom fwomma fwom fwom*

These are literally your words. You used killer as a verb and referred to the scum as intruders. So they're not words I put in your mouth so much as they are words you put in your own mouth. 

If this is your view, then Daniel's insistence on getting answers from several people despite us answering them, repeatedly, should make him the king scum in your eyes. Your reason for voting for me seems to be solely based on me asking for clarification on what I see as inconsistencies in your statements and answers. I'm not scum so my intention is not to get you to appear any certain way, I'm trying to discern your intentions. The perceived inconsistencies and parroting of Andrew ping me. If you could humor me for a second, in what ways has a poke vote gotten other players talking more in previous games? What about it works, in your experience?

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

 And I try to be so careful when proof reading my posts! My apologies for using incorrect grammer/spelling when using "killer". As for "intruder," that's just a fancy way to say "scum." I wasn't trying to be vague so much as roleplay a little at that point. We are in a Pirates Mafia game after all. 

As for poke votes, you only have to look as far back as Pirates II to see their helpfulness. Really, if you are an experienced player this seems like a very odd question. At the beginning of day 1 what other kinds of votes are there?

What other players are you referring to that Daniel is harassing? Seems to be you and Aiden mostly. Your whole strategy has been to post text walls and Aiden has been super defensive. All 3 of you seem scummy as I posted before. To clarify the reason I think you are scummy, it's because you have been inconsistent and have been hiding behind text walls.

Let me also address here why I haven't said more about Joshua since you keep calling me out on that. Should he have been more careful with details when he counted the number of those voting or not voting for a lynch? Yes. Have his actions been odd? Yes. Are they odd enough to ping me as scum, not yet. But that's in part because he, like so many others right now, are not posting much at all. 

Really this whole first point seems silly. I've answered all of these things before, yet you claim I haven't. Anyone who has read the threads can see my responses.

Quote

2. Not removing his vote from Joshua for the duel-reason of keeping people talking and not finding Joshua's posts sufficient. It can't be both.

This one is answered in my response to your first claim. My reason for voting in the first place was to get people talking. My reason for keeping the vote on Joshua for more of Day 1 was because his actions were scummy. And turns out that was an accurate read.

Quote

3. For voicing suspicion about Joshua but never voicing the biggest concern that his posts didn't reflect reality: Saying Fred and Emmett were pushing for a no-lynch when they weren't. 

Also answered above. Why does my concern about Joshua's scumminess have to match yours perfectly? And as you have stated before, hammering Joshua would be a lousy scum play. Not counting beforehand to realize my vote hammered him would be an even stupider scum play. But it makes sense as an innocent town play.

Quote

4. For telling us he didn't want Joshua lynched and then telling us that he did, despite us being able to see that he did say he wasn't in favor of the Joshua lynch. This after keeping his vote on Joshua throughout the duration of Day One.

Really? After I've already answered this? Why do you keep bringing it up? My statement makes it pretty clear:

16 hours ago, Justin Reynaud said:

Wow. I'm so glad we got one! I found Joshua suspicious, but was worried he'd flip town. 

And here's my followup to your response:

14 hours ago, Justin Reynaud said:

15 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

*Fwoooooooom fwooooooooooom*

16 hours ago, Justin Reynaud said:

I wanted to lynch him

On 4/14/2020 at 10:07 AM, Justin Reynaud said:

Joshua has pinged me a little, but not enough that I think it's the right thing to lynch him today.

Mm Hm...

I wanted to lynch him, but I didn't think it was the "right" course of action because my gut was telling me he was town. Pick that apart if you want, but it's pretty straight forward.

You keep dragging old arguments up. This is why I've called you a foolish town at best, or scum at worst. Everything answered, everyone satisfied, but you bring them up like they are new.

Quote

5. For, supposedly, not knowing he was the hammer vote for Joshua. Oh, oops. I didn't realize.

Whether I realized it or not, I voted for him. Sure, I could be scum trying to convince you all of my innocence. But then why would I be honest with you about not counting votes before hand to realize I was the hammer?

Quote

6. For PMing Daniel to inquire about his suspicion of me, and then not responding, seeming to Daniel (as stated earlier today) that it was just an attempt to set up a wagon on me the next day. From what Daniel communicated to us, I agree with that. I feel his posts have also been pushing for an eventual lynch of me, and I know I'm town. 

So you are taking a PM that you were not part of and reacting to it based off a different PM. All before I've answered Daniel about why I didn't respond to him? Every reason for lynching me you've laid out has been a reach, but this really takes the cake. 

I hope everyone has stuck through this text wall and can seem how much you are over-extending for reasons to lynch me.

I am town. I have a minor role but nothing that will make the town's job harder if I'm gone. If I can best serve the town by being lynched so you all can get a better read on the actual scum, then so be it. That's why I'm going to vote for Vincent despite it looking like a revenge vote. It's not a revenge vote. Despite Jean's read on you, the evidence is just too strong the other way. If you are scum, then you want my vote to look like a desperate act. 

 

Because I am trying to be a helpful town, I want to address this:

9 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

*Fwoom fwoom*

My point is in favor of Alex being town. If he's scum, he should've been prepared to claim, like you clearly were. Yet, he didn't. This is a point that he is not scum, in that if we are mostly the same crew from the last game, he would know not to claim vanilla or "no action" if he were scum. If he's town and didn't want to reveal a role that would be inconsiderate to your claim, wouldn't it? The scum in the last game thought they'd win by coasting under the radar and not posting. Alex is barely posting, which is scummy, but could indicate he's actually busy. If the scum in the last game were caught for being inactive, the most suspicious to me are those being active by post count but not by content, like Justin.

Here are the current players and their claims:

Fred Dumont - Town Blocker
Peter Lyon - No claim
Daniel Lucas - Town Jail-keeper
Trenton Monette - No claim
Justin Reynaud - Minor Role
Emmett Ware - Minor Role
Andrew Laurent - Town Vanilaizer
Aiden Leon - Role
Alex Howe - Vanilla
Fabien Bellamy - No claim
Vincent Denis - Role
Robin Tremblay - Minor Role

So out of the 12 players we have left, 3 have made no claims either way to having a role. 1 has claimed Vanilla. Seems possible that it's not role madness, but not likely in my opinion.

 

Putting this at the end so it doesn't get missed, but please follow my reasoning above!

Vote: Vincent Denis

[Fred Dumont]

10 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

I've stated that three role blocking claims make sense because we had them in Pirates II. I've also stated assumptions are reckless. Peter hasn't pinged me. I've actually got him in the potential town column. I'm not crazy about this. @Fred Dumont Why Peter? I'm totally for tagging anonymous accounts, by the way. Despite Joshua railing against them, I keep a separate browser open to access this game anonymously, so I hear notifications. 

Because he's been fairly quiet and under the radar. I figured it would be interesting to see if it was worth it. I was unsuccessful that night in my result.

31 minutes ago, Justin Reynaud said:

Here are the current players and their claims:

Fred Dumont - Town Blocker
Peter Lyon - No claim
Daniel Lucas - Town Jail-keeper
Trenton Monette - No claim
Justin Reynaud - Minor Role
Emmett Ware - Minor Role
Andrew Laurent - Town Vanilaizer
Aiden Leon - Role
Alex Howe - Vanilla
Fabien Bellamy - No claim
Vincent Denis - Role
Robin Tremblay - Minor Role

So out of the 12 players we have left, 3 have made no claims either way to having a role. 1 has claimed Vanilla. Seems possible that it's not role madness, but not likely in my opinion.

I agree. not role madness is possible, but I don't think we're not in role madness, unless every minor role is vanilla and everyone is lying to seem like they're a role.

[Daniel Lucas]

58 minutes ago, Justin Reynaud said:

Putting this at the end so it doesn't get missed, but please follow my reasoning above!

Vote: Vincent Denis

Hmm, clearly it is just getting a bit redundant to overanalyse each other's text at this point. I had my part in this, I admit. But that was D1 and D2. We have now a couple of claims and a good lead with Joshua being scum.

Vincent discarded my theory about Emmett being the scum from the 4 dudes voting for me besides Joshua. His reasons seemed to be a bit off, something very similar I've felt before. Maybe they know something about each other we don't. Maybe a scum thing, maybe something similar Jean knew about Joshua. Maybe my reads are the one being a bit off.

Fabien and me joined on this vote for curiosity I think. You are either lying about your minor role, or there is no reason to reveal it, because it'd make it obsolete. Fine. How the f*** would I know, honestly. I am a jailer and all I get know is intel being shared by others. At least your voting behaviour is consistent about Vincent, which gives me hope you are not scum. For what it's worth, you are still going after him, while I did not give you enough reason to believe that I'll support you on this again. I'm not convinced in either directions now.

I still don't understand why you thought Justin, that there is nothing to discuss with me. My answer was quite straightforward. Would you care to explain please what were your thoughts exactly about my PM answer?

Also what is your take on my theory, about a scum being either Robin, Fred, Trenton or Emmett? While you did not answer me privately we can still discuss this in public.

[Justin Reynaud]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Hmm, clearly it is just getting a bit redundant to overanalyse each other's text at this point. I had my part in this, I admit. But that was D1 and D2. We have now a couple of claims and a good lead with Joshua being scum.

Vincent discarded my theory about Emmett being the scum from the 4 dudes voting for me besides Joshua. His reasons seemed to be a bit off, something very similar I've felt before. Maybe they know something about each other we don't. Maybe a scum thing, maybe something similar Jean knew about Joshua. Maybe my reads are the one being a bit off.

Fabien and me joined on this vote for curiosity I think. You are either lying about your minor role, or there is no reason to reveal it, because it'd make it obsolete. Fine. How the f*** would I know, honestly. I am a jailer and all I get know is intel being shared by others. At least your voting behaviour is consistent about Vincent, which gives me hope you are not scum. For what it's worth, you are still going after him, while I did not give you enough reason to believe that I'll support you on this again. I'm not convinced in either directions now.

I still don't understand why you thought Justin, that there is nothing to discuss with me. My answer was quite straightforward. Would you care to explain please what were your thoughts exactly about my PM answer?

Also what is your take on my theory, about a scum being either Robin, Fred, Trenton or Emmett? While you did not answer me privately we can still discuss this in public.

I'm happy to keep dialoguing with you. It's not that I think there is nothing to discuss. I didn't continue the PM convo because it didn't seem like you were ready to share anything else. Specifically it was you saying "Anyway, if I end up dead, there are just enough documented posts from N1 and D2 observations to read if the question becomes current again." To me that came across like you were saying, "Everything I want to say to you on the matter has been said." I'm sorry I misunderstood your intentions. I didn't pursue any further talk with you because I didn't want to come across as an eager scum looking for a read. Did I want to get a read on you? Of course! But if you're town then you'll keep helping us so it didn't seem wise to push. You also seemed fine with dropping the conversation so I left it.

As for the Robin, Fred, Trenton, and Emmett theory I do think there is something there. Those 4 and Joshua voted for you after your role claim. Robin is suspicious already for lurking a lot. If you can be trusted then presumably Fred can be trusted. Trenton has said very little and is certainly on my radar as a possible quiet scum. And Emmett, I'd have to go back and read Days 1 and 2 again but something about him seems inconsistent. I don't have actual proof to share though so I want to be careful with how I say that. Between the 3 remaining (Robin, Trenton, and Emmett) my vote would be on Trenton because of how quiet he's been.

And in case anyone accuses me of not responding, let me add some more clarity to this:

17 hours ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Justin contacted me as well. He said for what it's worth he thinks I'm Town. Also asked if I truly think Vincent is scum. Now this pinged me HARD, because obviously I voiced my opinion of Vincent being a scum all D2. Asking about this again felt some blank, buddy up talk, or maybe a hidden threat. 

So I've answered, (instead of throwing accusations and warnings around, duh)  it does not really matter now, because except Andrew, Joshua and him no one played like patient Town - not even me - and clearly the other's were not interested in voting for Vincent to find out. I thought this is going to ease him, in case my ping is right.

He now implicated that Fred and I could be working together as scum. That is interesting to say. If I am scum, why would another scum openly jump next to me with another and potential scum roleclaim, while I'm clearly not the most confirmed Town out here. Also any counterclaim for the same roles could give us some hard time as well. This door is seemingly open for Justin, I'm just not sure how does he plan to figure this out if true.

I don't know how to figure out if you and Fred are working together either! Obviously I'm suspicious of everyone at this point, as I expect everyone to be suspicious of me. Having you and Fred claim blocking roles could only be a successful scum play if you get the town to hesitate in lynching one or both of you because we don't want to lose a PR. It's a stretch and not likely as I stated when I first posted it. But this whole game is already nuts and I didn't want to completely discount the idea.

[Daniel Lucas]

Actually I meant my last sentence as a reminder. In case I'm killed you'd have been able to read my observations again. But it does not matter now since Joshua flipped scum.

9 minutes ago, Justin Reynaud said:

As for the Robin, Fred, Trenton, and Emmett theory I do think there is something there. Those 4 and Joshua voted for you after your role claim.

I think you missed a couple of things about this. Actually they all voted for me before my role claim. I claimed after Joshua's vote, because I took him as a solid town, and I just had to call BS on this whole wagon thing right after.

Also let me quote my conclusion about this:

11 hours ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Again the guys who voted on me: Robin, Fred, Trenton, Emmett, Joshua. Joshua was another potential wagon in the meantime and he flipped scum. This suggest me that Scum was building my wagon to save Joshua. I have the assumption that Joshua was not the only scum voting for me. I'm not saying who was it, but after this I've just made some conclusions.

• Robin was jailed by me.
• Fred claimed roleblocker.
• Trenton did unvote me instantly, which reduced the wagon momentum on me. This was not helping Joshua.
• Trenton and Robin did not vote on Joshua.
• Emmett and Fred unvoted me just after Joshua was practically the main lynch candidate. Emmett was 7th, Fred was 9th vote.

Also there is Justing for the 8th, hammer vote. Who is a bit suspicious with his PM.

That's where I am.

Also I wouldn't say I work together with Fred. Or more like I would not say there's too much to work together for now. He claimed and we've made a short conclusion about our best options. He did not unvote me instantly, but he gave his reasons for it. He made a redundant vote on Joshua. This could all mean a lot of things. If I want to be fair, he was consistent so far considering his actions and his PM. He can still be a scum roleblocker as I can be too. I'm not sure why he claimed though. Could easily be a buddy up act. I think our best option now is to make a discussion together.

If it feels like I'm pushing too hard on my vote analysis, you are not mistaken. I am. I do think our best option is to take a closer look at this 4 players. Also there is Vincent, Emmett and Fabien about you and I'm still voting for you. But if you'd consider not voting for Vincent now (as I truly think that would be a waste of time this day, as I've pointed it out in our PM) I would remove my vote from you. At least this is my proposition, because I won't vote for Vincent. He knows something and I have a feeling he might have some useful PR.

Fabien agreed that my assumption is possibly correct, even Vincent agreed to this, only he suggested Robin. My take is either Robin or Emmett. But honestly I'd like to hear from all 4 players about this issue. Fred and Trenton too.

[Trenton Monette]

34 minutes ago, Justin Reynaud said:

Between the 3 remaining (Robin, Trenton, and Emmett) my vote would be on Trenton because of how quiet he's been.

I apologise for being inactive. I’ve had other ship mate activities to attend too. Though I do find this interesting since myself and Robin have posted around the same number of times. I’ve put more theory forwards about Robin. Twice now. And both times they’ve been brushed under the carpet and ignored completely. I unvoted for Daniel because many games have been saved thanks to a late(ish) claim. As I meantime’s we had already lost two townies that day.  

I was also in contact with Jean last night. He agreed with my thoughts on Robin and he also raised concerns with Peter, Fabian and Fred. (Obviously he hadn’t claimed blocker at this point.) 

The Vanillaiser claim is interesting. Can it be used every night or only on certain nights?

[Andrew Laurent]

15 hours ago, Fabien Bellamy said:

Either it is role madness, or someone is a scum blocker. Perhaps explaining your target choices can help (and I'm speaking in general, not only to Andrew). Why did Fred choose to block Peter instead of Robin or Aiden (his votes on day 1) ? Why did Andrew block (or should I say vanilaize ) Peter?

As has already been clarified by others, I blocked (or vanilaized) Fred on night 1. I chose him because he'd been pretty middle of the road, forgettable. Seemed like a decent pick. It was day 1, there wasn't a ton to go on yet. 

13 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

That's a great point, Robin. Annoying is not a reason to find anyone scummy. It's exactly the reason Andrew said that if either me or Daniel were scum it was me, because he found me more annoying. Excuse the fuck out of me if I say that nobody has more right to be annoyed with Daniel than me. But have I ever voted for him? No. Yes, I found our PM interaction scummy but I waited to see responses from him to gauge if I felt he was town or not. Basing decisions on annoyance is an emotional appeal, not an actual scum read. So, justify all you want with annoyance, the real way to hunt scum is to weigh people's actions against their words. Scapegoating annoyance as your reason to vote indicates a flippancy that is masking an intention to mislead the town along the lines of chaos.

I honestly didn't think I'd ever called you scummier, but I went through days 1 and 2 and yes, I did on day 2. I said "As a loyal soldier, if I had to pick one of the 3 to be scum, my bet would be on Vincent. However, as I've said, I think all 3 are town and so I am not voting for any of the 3 unless new reasons show up. " Key words being, if I had to vote for one of you, I'd pick Vincent. You're right, it was based on annoyance more than anything. 

13 hours ago, Vincent Denis said:

Bullshit. Vanillaiser

Your definition and your spelling don't appear on mafiascum.

It does not say permanently.

Nope, it doesn't. I couldn't figure out what the difference was between vaniliaizer (or however the heck you spell it, it's not a real word so my dictionary red underlines it no matter how I spell it) and blocker was. I assumed it had to be that vanilaizer was a permanent effect which seemed super overpowered (which might be why isn't not a common role). So I talked to the host. In this game, there is no difference other than name. Over on mafiascum, the difference is that a vanilaizer typically affects the target the NEXT night, not the night the effect is used. That seems quite weak - there's such delay in it. So that is why it's an uncommon role. Here, bob just stole the name and used it how he wanted. Sorta like how Pirates 2 had a "commuter" that was really a rolestopper (commuter usually affects themselves, but the P2 commuter affected someone else)

2 hours ago, Trenton Monette said:

The Vanillaiser claim is interesting. Can it be used every night or only on certain nights?

Every night. As I said, it's really a standard "blocker" but with a weird name. 

[Peter Lyon]

6 hours ago, Justin Reynaud said:

I don't know how to figure out if you and Fred are working together either! Obviously I'm suspicious of everyone at this point, as I expect everyone to be suspicious of me. Having you and Fred claim blocking roles could only be a successful scum play if you get the town to hesitate in lynching one or both of you because we don't want to lose a PR.

Daniel later says they're not exactly working together, but they're sharing reads and while they aren't working together, per se, it does sound like they coordinated actions last night.  From a pure role claiming standpoint, Andrew's Vanillaizer sounds the weirdest and made up.  The fort records suggest the traditional version of the role is typically anti-town, which makes me think it's a terrible scum claim.  Daniel's Jailkeeper is now starting to sound to me like a reasonable balance for town protection with so many roles.  Fred's straight blocker claim sounds the most like what we'd expect to be on either team.  I have found Fred pretty scummy all game, but I haven't heard anyone argue against his, or any of the blocker's action claims.

5 hours ago, Daniel Lucas said:

If it feels like I'm pushing too hard on my vote analysis, you are not mistaken. I am. I do think our best option is to take a closer look at this 4 players. Also there is Vincent, Emmett and Fabien about you and I'm still voting for you. But if you'd consider not voting for Vincent now (as I truly think that would be a waste of time this day, as I've pointed it out in our PM) I would remove my vote from you. At least this is my proposition, because I won't vote for Vincent. He knows something and I have a feeling he might have some useful PR.

I think those votes are certainly worth looking into.  You already know my past thoughts on Fred.  Robin, Emmett, and Trenton are fairly similar in my mind at this point.  I feel like Robin has been the least helpful, but I'm not sure if that has equated to scummy.

I think the day 1 interaction and Vincent's other points on Justin make him a reasonable choice for today.  He has yet to say anything that really alleviates those concernts.

Vote: Justin Reynaud

[Fred Dumont]

3 hours ago, Andrew Laurent said:

As has already been clarified by others, I blocked (or vanilaized) Fred on night 1. I chose him because he'd been pretty middle of the road, forgettable. Seemed like a decent pick. It was day 1, there wasn't a ton to go on yet. 

I honestly didn't think I'd ever called you scummier, but I went through days 1 and 2 and yes, I did on day 2. I said "As a loyal soldier, if I had to pick one of the 3 to be scum, my bet would be on Vincent. However, as I've said, I think all 3 are town and so I am not voting for any of the 3 unless new reasons show up. " Key words being, if I had to vote for one of you, I'd pick Vincent. You're right, it was based on annoyance more than anything. 

Nope, it doesn't. I couldn't figure out what the difference was between vaniliaizer (or however the heck you spell it, it's not a real word so my dictionary red underlines it no matter how I spell it) and blocker was. I assumed it had to be that vanilaizer was a permanent effect which seemed super overpowered (which might be why isn't not a common role). So I talked to the host. In this game, there is no difference other than name. Over on mafiascum, the difference is that a vanilaizer typically affects the target the NEXT night, not the night the effect is used. That seems quite weak - there's such delay in it. So that is why it's an uncommon role. Here, bob just stole the name and used it how he wanted. Sorta like how Pirates 2 had a "commuter" that was really a rolestopper (commuter usually affects themselves, but the P2 commuter affected someone else)

Every night. As I said, it's really a standard "blocker" but with a weird name. 

So to clarify, it's a one night thing, that specific night you use it? otherwise I wouldn't have received a successful result last night. It's just an odd role, although I guess we shouldn't be surprised at all when it comes to Bob.

[Justin Reynaud]

6 hours ago, Trenton Monette said:

I apologise for being inactive. I’ve had other ship mate activities to attend too. Though I do find this interesting since myself and Robin have posted around the same number of times. I’ve put more theory forwards about Robin. Twice now. And both times they’ve been brushed under the carpet and ignored completely. I unvoted for Daniel because many games have been saved thanks to a late(ish) claim. As I meantime’s we had already lost two townies that day.  

True, you and Robin have the same-ish number of posts. I guess I should add that I find you scummy because of how quiet you've been as well as your two attempts to get attention focused on Robin. He's certainly scummy too. But your small attempts look more like a scum trying to be helpful/not helpful. Not enough for me to vote on you yet, but those are my reasons.

6 hours ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Actually I meant my last sentence as a reminder. In case I'm killed you'd have been able to read my observations again. But it does not matter now since Joshua flipped scum.

I think you missed a couple of things about this. Actually they all voted for me before my role claim. I claimed after Joshua's vote, because I took him as a solid town, and I just had to call BS on this whole wagon thing right after.

Also let me quote my conclusion about this:

Also I wouldn't say I work together with Fred. Or more like I would not say there's too much to work together for now. He claimed and we've made a short conclusion about our best options. He did not unvote me instantly, but he gave his reasons for it. He made a redundant vote on Joshua. This could all mean a lot of things. If I want to be fair, he was consistent so far considering his actions and his PM. He can still be a scum roleblocker as I can be too. I'm not sure why he claimed though. Could easily be a buddy up act. I think our best option now is to make a discussion together.

If it feels like I'm pushing too hard on my vote analysis, you are not mistaken. I am. I do think our best option is to take a closer look at this 4 players. Also there is Vincent, Emmett and Fabien about you and I'm still voting for you. But if you'd consider not voting for Vincent now (as I truly think that would be a waste of time this day, as I've pointed it out in our PM) I would remove my vote from you. At least this is my proposition, because I won't vote for Vincent. He knows something and I have a feeling he might have some useful PR.

Fabien agreed that my assumption is possibly correct, even Vincent agreed to this, only he suggested Robin. My take is either Robin or Emmett. But honestly I'd like to hear from all 4 players about this issue. Fred and Trenton too.

Day 2 had so much content, but I've gone back through and seen that yes, their votes came before your claim. Sorry for the mix up  

As much as Vincent is pinging me, I'm willing to unvote on him today. I agree that our efforts are better spent trying to root out one of the other scum.

11 minutes ago, Peter Lyon said:

I think the day 1 interaction and Vincent's other points on Justin make him a reasonable choice for today.  He has yet to say anything that really alleviates those concernts.

Vote: Justin Reynaud

Wow, really? This pings me as a scum move to get a wagon formed. Easy for you to jump in at this point. Except your reasoning is flawed. I've given answers to everything Vincent laid out. If you're going to vote for me, can you at least give your own thoughts on the matter?

I don't know who else to vote for at the moment, so many people look scummy. But in the interest of helping the town as a whole:

Unvote: Vincent Denis

[Andrew Laurent]

10 minutes ago, Fred Dumont said:

So to clarify, it's a one night thing, that specific night you use it? otherwise I wouldn't have received a successful result last night. It's just an odd role, although I guess we shouldn't be surprised at all when it comes to Bob.

To clarify, it's just like a normal blocker. Last night I tried to block Fabien and I failed, because you blocked me. Night 1 I blocked you, which is why you failed to block Peter. I'm not sure how competing blocks would be worked out by bob, but I assume he's got some method. Dunno if it's in order submitted, or coin flips, or what. There are different methods I've seen on mafiascum, but I obviously don't know which one bob is using for this game. Like, if you and I blocked each other tonight, how would that work? We couldn't BOTH be successful. I don't know who's block would go though. 

[Emmett Ware]

10 hours ago, Alex Howe said:

Unfortunately I don't have much more light to shed on my role claim, I have no night action as I said.  I even re-checked my enlistment letter to be sure I hadn't misread. After checking, it does explicitly use the word vanilla.  I make sure I go to sleep on time every day and I don't do anything at night.

I am inclined to believe that effectively quoting the host by saying it explicitly uses the word vanilla would be a violation if it wasn't true, per rule 7.

Quote

7) You may not quote or pretend to quote anything sent to you by the game host via PM. This includes the details of your character and role, as well as any night actions results. Role claims and reporting of results are acceptable, but in your own words only.

I guess this isn't role madness? Is there some other way to use the word vanilla without it meaning what it seems to?

Technically, it isn't even misquoting that would be the problem, it would be any quoting, so that's a problem.

I don't know what to make of any of it. Now I remember why I retired.

[Daniel Lucas]

1 hour ago, Justin Reynaud said:

I don't know who else to vote for at the moment, so many people look scummy. But in the interest of helping the town as a whole:

Unvote: Vincent Denis

This case I will do my part as well and unvote you. However Peter did vote you in the meantime, so the numbers do not change on you. That is an interesting take from him, since you really answered in a very long post, while he said he is waiting for your take on the accusation. 

Here is my take:

If you are scum, some of the voters on you know something which I clearly don't. If you are Town that means my hunch about Vincent protecting Emmett explicitly from the 4 players I'm always bringing up, is true. Either way they have to know something. To be honest I did not even want to vote on Joshua, I only did because Jean asked me twice very nicely while he was picking on me all the time. This made me having a gut feeling about his all day game. I knew if Joshua would flip Town they've would get a lot of heat, so I did not see why would they just go this hard to get one townie killed.

I feel the same now with Vincent. I wanted to help him out if hi is truly a town with some knowledge and make pressure on you. Your answer gives me hope you are Town. I'd be interested to see Vincent's resposne to your answers. I see Emmett already posted but did not ask you anything. Which means he alread made up his mind about you and don't cares. It seems he just likes the wagon growing and that is enough for him. I don't know where to put this.

About the vanillaizer role: From me it seemed clear at the first moment that it is just an other name for blocker. Bob had done the same with jailer and commuter before. Andrew can be scum too, but this won't be the reason in my opinion. I see the same chance of him being the scim blocker as I see for Fred. And all the others should see the same for all three of us. Only inconsistency can prove us wrong or a new information.

At this point I'd love to hear from Robin.

Unvote: Justin Reynaud

[Emmett Ware]

8 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

I see Emmett already posted but did not ask you anything. Which means he alread made up his mind about you and don't cares. It seems he just likes the wagon growing and that is enough for him. I don't know where to put this.

I'm starting to wonder why so many people were curious about Alex, yet now he's posted, it brings up more problems than answers. So why am I the only one who has even commented on it? 

I haven't locked my vote with unwavering certainty yet, it's still early and things may change, but I haven't seen anything that Justin has said to make me less suspicious, so the vote stays for now. Did you get something out of his post that I missed?

I'll add this: There are people who have been so quiet that I haven't gotten a decent read on them. Too many of them, at this point. That means that most of my focus has to go to the people who either say a lot, or who have specific points that have caught my attention, like the vanilla thing with Alex. I honestly don't know any other way to proceed.

[Daniel Lucas]

10 minutes ago, Emmett Ware said:

I'm starting to wonder why so many people were curious about Alex, yet now he's posted, it brings up more problems than answers. So why am I the only one who has even commented on it? 

I will comment. It seems Alex did violate a game rule indeed. He gave a bit tedious logical reasoning for why he's truly a vanilla. Of course there were already some implications that we just auto-lynch vanilla claims. But still claiming as one will not prove otherwise for now. If more vanilla claims would surface, I'd be a bit more concessive about it. Also he is lurking since the beginning. Just as Robin.

Yes I'm with you on this Emmett. I'd love to hear about them. We can't make the luxury of ignoring them at this point.

 

[Robin Tremblay]

34 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

At this point I'd love to hear from Robin.

What do you want to know? I’m a knight, I protect my target.

[Daniel Lucas]

Just now, Robin Tremblay said:

What do you want to know? I’m a knight, I protect my target.

What?  That is bad. A BIT more I've been expecting to hear. I can't figure you out Robin.

Here is what I want to know.

If you are knight, who did you protect N1 and who did you want to protect N2? Because this would mean we have 2 blockers, 1 jailer with a block-protection and one protector, all as town claims. And we did not manage to save one single soul for 2 nights now. Can be true, because Fred and Andrew kept blocking each other. I jailed you once, you confirmed it. I jailed a claimed Vanilla before. While Remi and Jean were the kill targets.

Do you want to get out of this game? Because you just made yourself Scum Target No. 1. 

About your vote on me: Did you really vote on  me for me being annoying? Annoying as Town or Scum? Because you did not contact me N2 which would indicate you don't trust me. But why did you unvote me after my claim then?

[Robin Tremblay]

My protecting ability is limited and I don’t want to waste it. I didn’t target anyone on N1. On N2 i wanted to protect Vincent because I didn’t trust you, and since you and Vincent argued a lot yesterday I thought he would be targeted.

Again, my vote on you was because you were annoying and creating a toxic environment, which is something that benefits scum. After you claimed it seemed plausible that you were town, but I still didn’t trust you. So why would I want to reach out to you? You didn’t reach out to me either. Your behavior D1, D2 was insane. Based on what I know now, I would describe you as Chaotic Town.

[Fabien Bellamy]

45 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

I will comment. It seems Alex did violate a game rule indeed. He gave a bit tedious logical reasoning for why he's truly a vanilla. Of course there were already some implications that we just auto-lynch vanilla claims. But still claiming as one will not prove otherwise for now. If more vanilla claims would surface, I'd be a bit more concessive about it. Also he is lurking since the beginning. Just as Robin. 

This is an interesting conundrum. We can fish for claims to try and verify our host's setup. We can use the information to coordinate Town moves. But in doing so we're giving so much information to Scum, it's pathetic. Please stop claiming, and stop fishing for claims. At least don't do it in public, unless it's something uber vital to the current day strategy. Alex could be vanilla, or he could lying about it because he's Scum, or he could be lying about it because he has an important town role, whatever. I don't think it's prudent to keep pushing for more people to give away PRs, unless they're doing it to save their butt.

 

45 minutes ago, Robin Tremblay said:

What do you want to know? I’m a knight, I protect my target.

....

[Daniel Lucas]

O-kay.

I can only tell you this. No I do not want to spread chaos. I was doing reads very actively and harhsly, just as I did on Pirates II. I had a good read there on Paul, maybe I'm totally off now. I did not want to get personal with anybody until I've felt they start to get personal with me on the other hand only because of in-game mafia accusations I've made. When someone gets a bit personal that is just feeding my hunch. Also I took Joshua as town and his vote on me triggered me quite hard. I've apologized for that many times now. Clearly it was not a lazy vote but a calculated wagon building from a scum.

I did not reach out to you, because you was lurking. You did not say too much, you made a soft detective-claim, saying you did not see anything at N1. I jailed you because I thought you are going to be targeted because of that. Also was curious if we'd get a kill by blocking you as well. We did, which means you are not the scum killer at least.

One more question: why would Vincent be targeted? You said you wanted to protect him because you did not trust me. Do you think I'd call him scum all day, PM him at night, call him scum again all day and when he is not getting lynched I get him killed? If I would be scum and I would know Vincent is going to flip town, would I really go after him this hard? Either you are not thinking this through or you are giving me a theory that does not add up. 

Also what was your plan now with your claim? It is obvious we can't risk lynching you, which would be a totally safe zone for a scum act now.

Just now, Fabien Bellamy said:

Please stop claiming, and stop fishing for claims.

Who is fishing for claims? That is simply not true Fabien. Asking the lurkers to contribute is not the same to ask them to do a totally unnecessary town claim. This "fishing" idea is getting really redundant and tiresome. I myself ask for contribution. I think Robin's claim is just totally bonkers and I just don't see him surviving this unless it is a scum act we won't be able to figure out anytime soon.

[Robin Tremblay]

Just now, Daniel Lucas said:

One more question: why would Vincent be targeted? You said you wanted to protect him because you did not trust me. Do you think I'd call him scum all day, PM him at night, call him scum again all day and when he is not getting lynched I get him killed? If I would be scum and I would know Vincent is going to flip town, would I really go after him this hard? Either you are not thinking this through or you are giving me a theory that does not add up. 

Also what was your plan now with your claim? It is obvious we can't risk lynching you, which would be a totally safe zone for a scum act now.

Assuming you are town, if Vincent died and was town, then you would be blamed. Day 3 would be your lynching and on day 4 we would learn you were telling your truth. That would have been a major set back, and could be avoided if Vincent survived. 

[Daniel Lucas]

3 minutes ago, Fabien Bellamy said:

At least don't do it in public, unless it's something uber vital to the current day strategy. 

Also what is the current day strategy? There are 4 votes on Justin. I just unvoted him because I thought we don't have a strong enough case after his response and I don't like a lazy bandwagon on him. Clearly there is nothing more to decice until his answers are bing ignored. He even answered my question about the PM issue. Can be a scum defense? Yes, but there is no way to decide.

I've give you guys a strategy and most of you guys give a positive feedback about it, accepting that one scum must be either Robin, Fred, Trenton or Emmett. Yet four of you still going for Justin. One of them is Emmett, okay that is understandable, he won't just vote on himself. But he did not ask about the other three as for now, he pointed out validly his points about Alex.

Are you expecting Justin to say anything else? Are you not the one pushing for a roleclaim at this point? Clearly at 6-7 votes Justin will be forced too.

Also I had to stop the wagon on myself with claiming too. Was it not the same fishing, considering we had one confirmed scum on the wagon? Why are you voting on Justin if not for fishing for a claim?

You said yourself that you think my theory is true. But Justin seems still a bit more scummier all the same. Why?

[Robin Tremblay]

Just now, Daniel Lucas said:

Are you expecting Justin to say anything else? Are you not the one pushing for a roleclaim at this point? Clearly at 6-7 votes Justin will be forced too.

I would like Justin to come forward and claim. I think the more people that do benefits town more than scum. 

Vote: Justin Reynaud

[Daniel Lucas]

12 minutes ago, Robin Tremblay said:

Assuming you are town, if Vincent died and was town, then you would be blamed. Day 3 would be your lynching and on day 4 we would learn you were telling your truth. That would have been a major set back, and could be avoided if Vincent survived. 

Assuming I am Town. So you did see that I it is highly unlikely I'm going after Vincent as scum this hard. Or even let other scum buddies killing him since yes, I'd have got all the heat. But why not trusting me this case? You even unvoted me. Of course now we see that Jean was targeted not Vincent. Honestly you have more reason to think me as scum today than you had yesterday, because I was openly reluctant on voting on Joshua, even after he voted on me, and he flipped scum.

Also without your initial, not very exhaustive vote one me started a bandwagon. Fine, you had no knowledge it is going to be a bandwagon, but it had became one. And you got the claim and you unvoted. Yet still no attempt to contact me and to try figure things out.

So yes, I think you either are in a total safe zone with your protector claim and you are playing us or you missed a proper read on me yesterday.

5 minutes ago, Robin Tremblay said:

I would like Justin to come forward and claim. I think the more people that do benefits town more than scum. 

Vote: Justin Reynaud

 So his answers were truly not enough. Yes, Justin you need to claim or you'll get lynched, it is obvious. Fabien warns us not to rolefish yet does not reply anything to Justin's answers, which means he has either a better read or information on him, or he is the one actually fishing for his claim. See, this is why I find rolefish accusations tedious at this moment. All this game is about is information fishing.

Also Robin, if Justin claims too you unvote him as well? Mass claiming is your idea if I'm correct, right?

[Fabien Bellamy]

6 minutes ago, Daniel Lucas said:

Also what is the current day strategy? There are 4 votes on Justin. I just unvoted him because I thought we don't have a strong enough case after his response and I don't like a lazy bandwagon on him. Clearly there is nothing more to decice until his answers are bing ignored. He even answered my question about the PM issue. Can be a scum defense? Yes, but there is no way to decide. 

I've give you guys a strategy and most of you guys give a positive feedback about it, accepting that one scum must be either Robin, Fred, Trenton or Emmett. Yet four of you still going for Justin. One of them is Emmett, okay that is understandable, he won't just vote on himself. But he did not ask about the other three as for now, he pointed out validly his points about Alex. 

Are you expecting Justin to say anything else? Are you not the one pushing for a roleclaim at this point? Clearly at 6-7 votes Justin will be forced too. 

Also I had to stop the wagon on myself with claiming too. Was it not the same fishing, considering we had one confirmed scum on the wagon? Why are you voting on Justin if not for fishing for a claim?

You said yourself that you think my theory is true. But Justin seems still a bit more scummier all the same. Why?

 

The current strategy is to lynch Justin. Not to have him claim, even though it may be inevitable as he's getting closer to a lynch. But Joshua died without claiming if I remember correctly, so to each their own.

Your theory about Emmett is good, plausible. It doesn't mean it's true, it's still a theory. You're giving us 4 choices between Robin, Fred, Trenton and Emmett. I will tentatively label Robin as possibly Town, given that he was blocked last night. Fred's claim doesn't help me decide. As for Trenton and Emmett, it could go either way too. So even it's possible that one of them is Scum, I couldn't really choose between them at the moment.

But here's the essence of why I'm voting for Justin: he voted for a known Scum twice, once at the very beginning of Day 1 when it was totally inconsequential, then at the end of Day 2 when Joshua's lynch was inevitable, and therefore the vote also inconsequential. What better way to try and dissociate yourself from your Scum buddy?

It's not a proof of Justin's guilt, nothing short of a night result ever will. But it's good enough for me. And I don't need him to claim, Scum can claim very convincingly too.