SHIELD vs. HYDRA Mafia - Day 2

[Tariq j]

I'm not sure I trust Person B. he says " Did you see anyone else target my target?" Assuming Person A was the tracker/watcher why would they get two results? And why would someone randomly give their results to another player?

There's not a lot adding up here, I'm thinking Person B is more suspicious.

[JackJonespaw]

I'm not sure I trust Person B. he says " Did you see anyone else target my target?" Assuming Person A was the tracker/watcher why would they get two results? And why would someone randomly give their results to another player?

This makes sense. It does look like Person A is the watcher or tracker. But my question is - what is "Action X"? Is Person B asking A if they tracked/watched C? Which, since A said no, would mean that...B would know if A was the tracker or watcher, depending upon what A said he wasn't.

[Lady K]

The whole thing reeks to me, since there's way too much claiming to people without reason. I just don't get that. Unless one of these night actions was an investigator, why is anyone trusting anyone with role claims?

I agree with this. I have tried and I can't make sense of this play at all. I feel there are parts being left out or switching of persons comments. Honestly I feel Person A is more suspicious than B,C, or D because it feels like a lot of manipulation going on with a 'well so and so said this' type of thing. As well as acting like a distraction to keep us from focusing on who to lynch.

Only an investigator contacting the one investigated should have happened since it is just Day 2.

[Umbra-Manis]

This scenario is kind of confusing. Why did A claim to D? Did they already know somehow each other's roles? They could even be scum messing with our heads and A is a scum watcher.

-Assuming A and D aren't scum, C does seem scummiest with the "It was risky, but thanks line"

However, this whole situation still has a lot of assumptions.

[Dragonfire]

Maybe someone in the know can check if person C ended up with a pinapple or whatever that was in the opening pictures. That'd likely clear person B as having a prank role of so.

I'm not any of the people, so that can't be the case.

[fhomess]

I will go ahead and state that I'm Person B in the play and willing to answer some questions. There are conversations happening behind the scenes that I think will reveal more information fairly soon.

That's also a good point, didn't notice that line before. I find Person B's interrogatory questions quite suspicious, along with their apparent claim of their role and result to Person D.

I didn't communicate with Person D, whoever that is. Any information was passed along by Person A.

Maybe someone in the know can check if person C ended up with a pinapple or whatever that was in the opening pictures. That'd likely clear person B as having a prank role of so.

I'm not the prank role.

The whole thing reeks to me, since there's way too much claiming to people without reason. I just don't get that. Unless one of these night actions was an investigator, why is anyone trusting anyone with role claims?

This is very much true. I think when all is said and done, we'll both be glad and disappointed of it. There's a scum to be caught in here somewhere, but the scum probably have a lot of information they didn't need to have if things were handled a bit more discreetly.

I'm not sure I trust Person B. he says " Did you see anyone else target my target?" Assuming Person A was the tracker/watcher why would they get two results? And why would someone randomly give their results to another player?

I asked that because Person A asked me point blank if I was the blocker. Person A left that part out of the play, which is a bit disingenuous, since the conversation at that point was around whether or not we thought Person A might be the scum killer, and if I had blocked person A, then, presumably Person A wanted to lynch Person C. Person A never stated that explicitly, but it was implied. Which makes me wonder a bit at Act 3.

[Forresto]

What if Mr. Heinz posted that to confuse us all and send us all on a wild goose chase. I had a choice between two people and I will openly admit I believe I voted wrong originally. Mrs. Coleman was perhaps being a good Shield Agent.

Unvote: Hailey Coleman (Comrade Commander)

[Lady K]

AHOY! AHOY! AHOY!!!

I HAVE A PLAY FOR YOU!!!!!

-Lift curtain-

Act I

Person A - HEY!! I saw you visited Person C last night; why?

Person B - Oh, you know ... it seemed fun.

Person A - huh ... fun?

Person B - Did you see anyone else target my target?

Person A - No

Person B - Did you perform Action X on Person C?

Person A - No but I don't trust them, have you told about this to anyone else?

Person B - Yes, Person D.

Act II

Person A - I saw someone target you last night, do you know why?

Person C - No, why did you claim to me?

Person A - You seem on the level and I want to stir the discussion

Person C - It's risky to claim to me, bu thanks.

Person A - I'm waiting to see what Person B says about their visit

Person C - Let me know what they say, there's a good chance they are scum

Person A - Person B contacted you, the answer was weird

Person C - What do you mean, why Person B?

Person A - Oh shit, I messed up and revealed Person B's identity; I'm getting bad vibes here, goodbye

Person C - Well I'l be here if you want to talk

Person A - megabluck what do I do now ... what are the options?

Person C - Well the options are really Town role A, Scum role X, scum role Y or Town role Y.

Act III

Person A - You seem legit, I think I ducked up so here it is: I Action X Person C and told them and Person B. Now I fear they are both scum. If I die look at them.

Person D - I will, I was suspicious of Person C anyways however, Person B's answer is interesting.

Person D - Maybe Person C is the killer and was blocked.

Person D - We should lynch person C

soooooooo .... who's the scummiest; Person B or Person C

I will go ahead and state that I'm Person B in the play and willing to answer some questions. There are conversations happening behind the scenes that I think will reveal more information fairly soon.

I didn't communicate with Person D, whoever that is. Any information was passed along by Person A.

I'm not the prank role.

This is very much true. I think when all is said and done, we'll both be glad and disappointed of it. There's a scum to be caught in here somewhere, but the scum probably have a lot of information they didn't need to have if things were handled a bit more discreetly.

I asked that because Person A asked me point blank if I was the blocker. Person A left that part out of the play, which is a bit disingenuous, since the conversation at that point was around whether or not we thought Person A might be the scum killer, and if I had blocked person A, then, presumably Person A wanted to lynch Person C. Person A never stated that explicitly, but it was implied. Which makes me wonder a bit at Act 3.

This bothers me the most. Four players in this play, Persons A,B,C,and D. Too much behind the scenes trusting going on and now a hint that a scum may be caught and the price is the scum may now know more than they should.......can Person A even be trusted if all communications were going on through him/her? We are down to a few hours now to chose to lynch or no lynch and I'm don't feel we have made much progress today.

[Tariq j]

This bothers me the most. Four players in this play, Persons A,B,C,and D. Too much behind the scenes trusting going on and now a hint that a scum may be caught and the price is the scum may now know more than they should.......can Person A even be trusted if all communications were going on through him/her? We are down to a few hours now to chose to lynch or no lynch and I'm don't feel we have made much progress today.

Something pings me about this, this is now the second time today you've tried to label this PM as bluff and whilst that could be seen as a helpful move towards the town, it could also be interpreted as though you are trying to hide something, like there is a face or some key evidence that may concern you and you're trying to stop it coming public by claiming the PM is nonsense.

[Piratedave84]

This bothers me the most. Four players in this play, Persons A,B,C,and D. Too much behind the scenes trusting going on and now a hint that a scum may be caught and the price is the scum may now know more than they should.......can Person A even be trusted if all communications were going on through him/her? We are down to a few hours now to chose to lynch or no lynch and I'm don't feel we have made much progress today.

Ok ok.

Let's do this then:

vote: Daniel Bartell (MT)

He was targeted last night and only one kill was done AND he was seen targeting another player.

Occam's razor; we need to lynch him to figure out the other claims.

[Tariq j]

Ok ok.

Let's do this then:

vote: Daniel Bartell (MT)

He was targeted last night and only one kill was done AND he was seen targeting another player.

Occam's razor; we need to lynch him to figure out the other claims.

Hold on second, I may be misunderstanding what you're saying but was Daniel actually seen targeting Kinjobby? Because if not, we could just be lynching a town PR.

[Lady K]

Something pings me about this, this is now the second time today you've tried to label this PM as bluff and whilst that could be seen as a helpful move towards the town, it could also be interpreted as though you are trying to hide something, like there is a face or some key evidence that may concern you and you're trying to stop it coming public by claiming the PM is nonsense.

Actually, I wanted clarification. However your insisting that I'm labeling this as a bluff twice when I was only bringing it to attention is noted. Ping.

Ok ok.

Let's do this then:

vote: Daniel Bartell (MT)

He was targeted last night and only one kill was done AND he was seen targeting another player.

Occam's razor; we need to lynch him to figure out the other claims.

Ok, now we have clarification. Thank you.

Vote: Daniel Bartell (Mostlytechnic)

[Piratedave84]

Hold on second, I may be misunderstanding what you're saying but was Daniel actually seen targeting Kinjobby? Because if not, we could just be lynching a town PR.

Hum ... Phenomenal slip there buddy!

I never said who he targeted .... How do you know!!

This is just too good!!

[Tariq j]

Hum ... Phenomenal slip there buddy!

I never said who he targeted .... How do you know!!

This is just too good!!

What?! You said he was seen targeting another player... And of it wasn't Kinjobby then who was it?

[Piratedave84]

Too funny! You assume it was Kinjobby because you knew or ...

[mediumsnowman]

Vote Tally

3 votes for Steven Schram (Khscarymovie4): (Darkdragon, Dragonfire, JackJonespaw)

1 vote for Eugene Lawson (Forresto): (Comrade Commander)

2 votes for Walter Williams (jluck): (fhomess)

1 vote for Jasper Heinz (Piratedave84): (Khscarymovie4)

2 votes for Daniel Bartell (mostlytechnic): (Lady K, Piratedave84)

Nonvoting (7): (mostlytechnic, Bob, Forresto, Tariq j, jluck, Umbra-Manis, CallMePie)

With 15 players remaining, a majority of 8 is required for a lynch. Approximately 5 hours remain in the day.

[JackJonespaw]

Hang on a second, please. Do we know who Mr. Bartell was targeting? There should be some way to see this, right? Basically, if we look at who he targeted and realize that he is still alive, I think we might have a different situation on our hands.

Too funny! You assume it was Kinjobby because you knew or ...

...or because Kinjobby died last night? I do not know what you are reading into this. We are assuming that you are saying that Kinjobby is dead because of Mr. Bartell.

[Piratedave84]

More saucy details!!! I have conflicting PR claims!!! How awesome is this!!

Hang on a second, please. Do we know who Mr. Bartell was targeting? There should be some way to see this, right? Basically, if we look at who he targeted and realize that he is still alive, I think we might have a different situation on our hands.

...or because Kinjobby died last night? I do not know what you are reading into this. We are assuming that you are saying that Kinjobby is dead because of Mr. Bartell.

He didn't target Kinjobby; I just thought it was funny how he immediately jumped to that conclusion. IMO it's telling.

[Tariq j]

You're either having a laugh or trying to turn anything you see into a lynch.

Here is what you said:

vote: Daniel Bartell (MT)

He was targeted last night and only one kill was done AND he was seen targeting another player.

When you said "only one kill was done and he was seen targeting another playing" I interpreted that as you saying that Daniel didn't target Kejobbi because of the use of the word "another" hence why I was confused.

More saucy details!!! I have conflicting PR claims!!! How awesome is this!!

He didn't target Kinjobby; I just thought it was funny how he immediately jumped to that conclusion. IMO it's telling.

WHAT!!!! If Daniel didn't target Kenobi then why are we lynching him????

Also its a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come too. You said Daniel was seen targeting someone and Kenjobbybdied Las night, doesn't take genius to put too and too together...

[Piratedave84]

Alternate interpretation; he was seen targeting someone ( who survived) and there was only one kill therefore it is plausible that he was blocked. Or that the target was protected.

[Tariq j]

Alternate interpretation; he was seen targeting someone ( who survived) and there was only one kill therefore it is plausible that he was blocked. Or that the target was protected.

Oh okay, well sorry jumping to the wrong conclusions.

vote: Daniel Bartell (MostlyTechnic)

[Piratedave84]

Lynch who you want ... Or as the day progresses ... No lynch again.

We have a lead, I relayed the info in a shitty way I'll admit BUT it's still the most tangible info we have.

I don't what to reveal the conflicting claims just yet not out the PR.

I understand that you may be reluctant to listen/follow me but I think it's worth our while.

The 2 person with conflicting claims both appear town to me so I'm at a loss. Daniel is again a common denominator for the 2 claims so ... His hands seem to be in 3 pots at the same time; something's off.

[CMP]

So you've just exposed a potential townie PR on the basis that there was only one kill last night....and the entire argument hinges on the assumption that we have two kills, and both were attempted.

Isn't it entirely possible that the vig simply stayed home, like they should on night one?

[Piratedave84]

I've put forth my case and the evidence we have.

Vote as you wish,

[JackJonespaw]

I've put forth my case and the evidence we have.

Vote as you wish,

I for one will be keeping my vote where it is. This entire ploy seems too flimsy right now - I would quite like to see what tomorrow brings, now that we are all cautious of who we are cautious of.