Mafia - Day 2 - Twice as High

[JackJonespaw]

50 minutes ago, Trekkie99 said:

Yeah nah. What if we lynched a townie yesterday? 

MAfia - Conclusion - LoL Get Rekt Town

Yes, it makes sense for there to be only 2 knitters in our circle.

2 hours ago, Hinckley said:

Is it interesting, Robert? Because your question and her point are actually kind of pingy. I'm never comfortable when a Book Club Member gives a definitive explanation for the actions of The Knitting Circle. While I was a Miranda fan yesterday, I'm not so much today.

1. Like they drew names from a Pick-a-brick cup?

2. Like a decoy? Like we were like "We're Knitters and forgot to vote. Ooops! Well, let's kill Beaecky because she also didn't vote and that will put the eyes off of us! Let's slap her with a frozen fish!"

3. Information is not typically passed to an info-related role if they are killed in the night because they can't do anything with it and it reduces the temptation to pass on what they've learned from the dead. With all due respect, I don't think we have players that would do that anymore. I also admit I may have done it once or twice early on... This point has nothing to do with the Scum's reasoning. It's just speculation about Biicky having a role. It doesn't belong in your list.

Here's option 4: Serial killer.

I mean, three options aren't exactly a definitive explanation. 

To your point of Option 4: I would be really surprised if there was a serial killer amongst us. We're such a small group. If there does happen to be 3 knitters around, plus one serial killer...well then we've lost tomorrow. I just can't see it being plausible.

1 hour ago, Hinckley said:

I'm also wondering this! Especially since the choice of Buuoocky is so serial-killer-y.

What do you mean by this, Karen? (See, I'm learning!) I mean, besides Kendall, who kind-of-unless-she-was-lying saved herself by saying she has a useless role, why not Becky? It could have been any of us on Night 1, honestly.

[Hinckley]

3 hours ago, JackJonespaw said:

What do you mean by this, Karen? (See, I'm learning!) I mean, besides Kendall, who kind-of-unless-she-was-lying saved herself by saying she has a useless role, why not Becky? It could have been any of us on Night 1, honestly.

I could repeat myself or you could read my first two posts again.

[fhomess]

3 hours ago, JackJonespaw said:

To your point of Option 4: I would be really surprised if there was a serial killer amongst us. We're such a small group. If there does happen to be 3 knitters around, plus one serial killer...well then we've lost tomorrow. I just can't see it being plausible.

Your argument against the serial killer theory is that there might be 3 knitters around?

[KotZ]

Voting is now open. There are 48 hours left in the day. Due to your host being an idiot and not reading his own damn rules, the three nonvoting players opening tallies are at 2 votes each, not 5. With 8 players, a majority of 5 is needed to lynch. If somehow more than one player reaches five votes, the player with the higher total is lynched.

Vote Tally
Karen McMillan (Hinckley) - 2 votes (penalty, penalty)
Autumn Martin (fhomess) - 2 votes (penalty, penalty)

[Hinckley]

Vote: Miranda Beal (Darkdragon)

Yesterday, she was suspicious of and voted for Kendall. Today, she came in and accused me of being bananaman. She didn't come out and say it, but someone being involved in clubs previously, I'm assuming is me. Little history lesson: I epically failed at Bloodbrick Mafia by starting the "Jesus Garden Club." I've also caused other epic losses by gathering information and revealing it to the wrong people. To be honest, I've gotten better and worse over time but do have the tendency to be the Karen people confide in, even when it's unwarranted and gets everyone killed. I also have a tendency to narcissism and ramble about myself often, where was I?? Oh right, Mirand and her knitting needles. She didn't come out and saying it but she was throwing shade at me, at least I think. The first person to accuse me after I earned (5? 2? 19?) penalty votes. Weird that she dropped her suspicion of Kendall without any explanation. Then she suggested that I'm forming clubs. Does she know I was talking to people behind the scenes somehow? I blatantly admitted to contacting Kendall. I said I would've voted for her, but today I haven't accuse her at all. Isn't that cause for suspicion? No? Why not? I'm suspicious of me for it. Why isn't Miranda who seemed to want to accuse me with her first post but didn't?

Add to that that she accused everybody in the game, vaguely. Typical Scum tactic to seem active is to throw a bunch of questions out without reaching any conclusions. Then she vaguely hoped some Town Action would turn up some direction for us to follow. You have to make do with what you can. Hoping we can rely on some Town Action to be revealed is not proactive, but publicly hoping for it is at least slightly Scummy. Add to that, she didn't see any reason why bananaman with the fish wouldn't be bananaman with the croissant. Reeks of someone who glossed over the day opener just glancing at the pictures "Oh good, Baecky died..." without reading the info the host was giving us regarding bananaman alignment.

We have no way of knowing for sure who is a member of the Knitting Circle but I find her incredibly suspicious and I know she's up to something. How do I know? I heard from somebody about her. Maybe it's just a rumor...from that new club I formed.

[Trekkie99]

3 hours ago, Hinckley said:

Weird that she dropped her suspicion of Kendall without any explanation.

Yeah what even happened to any of that anyway? 

[jimmynick]

8 hours ago, KotZ said:

With 8 players, a majority of 5 is needed to lynch.

7 and 4, surely?

16 hours ago, JackJonespaw said:

I think a lot of this relies on - as little as I trust Kendall - what she saw last night (though taken with the giantest grain of salt in the universe).

So is it fair to say that something about Ken Burns Kendall's actions "just rub [you] the wrong way"?

Personally, the news that Karen instructed Kelly Ripa Kendall to visit her, and the latter claiming to be did, makes her somewhat trustworthy to me (though, of course, there seems to be no outwardly-visible objective result to her action, unlike the case of Bob's death).

16 hours ago, JackJonespaw said:

2. Karen and/or Autumn are part of the Knitting Club. That could explain why they're both safe despite being in the same situation that Becky was.

If Karen and/or Autumn are Knitting Clubbers, then why would one or other of them choose to kill Becky rather than someone else?

[Hinckley]

38 minutes ago, jimmynick said:

Personally, the news that Karen instructed Kelly Ripa Kendall to visit her,

Jesus...

I didn't instruct anybody to do anything. It went something like this:

Karen: Who did you target?

Kendall: You!

[jimmynick]

7 minutes ago, Hinckley said:

Jesus...

I didn't instruct anybody to do anything. It went something like this:

Karen: Who did you target?

Kendall: You!

You're quite right; I misremembered what you wrote earlier:

16 hours ago, Hinckley said:

Which is what she told me she would do when I contacted her in private to ask who she would target.

 

[fhomess]

From Day 1, Robert talking about Kendall's claimed role.

On 11/23/2019 at 11:31 AM, JackJonespaw said:

Gosh, maybe I am confused - is it a useless role? I've been out of town for a while now, and I could be misremembering some of the roles. I'll have to do some research and see if I'm confusing things.

Later on Day 1, this:

On 11/23/2019 at 12:41 PM, JackJonespaw said:

If I - and I believe now that I have - misunderstood the importance of Kendall's role, then what I said then isn't as important.

So Robert now understands that Kendall's claim is of a useless role.

From Day 2:

18 hours ago, Kristel said:

18 hours ago, JackJonespaw said:

I think a lot of this relies on - as little as I trust Kendall - what she saw last night (though taken with the giantest grain of salt in the universe). 

A compulsive visitor doesn't see anything.  The only thing Kendall can tell us is who she visited, not what the person she visited was doing.

Robert has forgotten that Kendall's role claim is of a useless role, but that is really the only thing of note from day 1 that was revealed.  It's the very thing that everyone should remember from Day 1.  There's no indication on either day that Robert doesn't actually believe Kendall.  This is true even if you look at how he voted for Kendall yesterday:

On 11/23/2019 at 9:10 PM, JackJonespaw said:

Ah geez, the day's almost over, and since voting is required...I Vote: Kendall Kane (Trekkie99). 

How about this - why specifically did you claim? Oh, yeah -

Unfortunately, that's the only thing that it has done. And as useless a role as it is, by claiming you have it you removed a target off of your back and placed it on one of the rest of us - and it could be someone with a really useful role.

I don't think it was a good move to come out and say it first thing. 

Gosh, what a day.

This vote doesn't accuse Kendall of being scum, it accuses Kendall of being a reckless townie.

Vote: Robert Stewart (JackJonespaw)

 

[Hinckley]

18 minutes ago, fhomess said:

From Day 1, Robert talking about Kendall's claimed role.

Later on Day 1, this:

So Robert now understands that Kendall's claim is of a useless role.

From Day 2:

Robert has forgotten that Kendall's role claim is of a useless role, but that is really the only thing of note from day 1 that was revealed.  It's the very thing that everyone should remember from Day 1.  There's no indication on either day that Robert doesn't actually believe Kendall.  This is true even if you look at how he voted for Kendall yesterday:

This vote doesn't accuse Kendall of being scum, it accuses Kendall of being a reckless townie.

Vote: Robert Stewart (JackJonespaw)

 

This is a great case, Autumn. This is my second candidate for a lynch today. If we can't reach a consensus, I could easily switch to Robert.

*second favorite.

[Darkdragon]

First of all - I did explain my vote yesterday very clearly and concisely at the time it was placed. Everyone seemed to have no issue reading it except for the two people I am most suspicious of. Interesting. All of that still holds true today, however I'm not quite as sure about Kendall as I am now about karen. So, for that reason I will end up having to change my vote. 

Second of all - I never accused you of anything, karen, and to type of a wall of paranoid text about it and form a group against me because you read into it that I was accusing you of something?  Wow, that's pretty on point. Going on the attack and voting me with not even one word of private communication? Another ping, as we use to say.  

So, I was in this spot  a while back - where I figured stumpy out early and was brutally attacked for it by the one person who everyone wants to instantly trust for no good reason.  It's pretty much the way it goes when I'm right - if I am not lynched today, I am certain I'll be murdered. History repeats itself. 

Also, a pretty good plan to vote me instantly because then, knowing I hadn't accused you but was in suspicion of you, you could always say a vote against you was retaliatory.  Even getting the penalty vote was a pretty good idea, so you could stay alive just one more day with the excuse that penalty votes aren't proof of being a knitter.  Nice. 

vote: karen McMillan (Hinckley)

Please though, fellow bookers, when I'm dead you must pay attention to my posts because I work only via logic and patterns.

[Hinckley]

19 minutes ago, Darkdragon said:

 and to type of a wall of paranoid text about it and form a group against me

Who's paranoid?

I don't see a group formed against you. What are you referring to? I see one person voting for you, me: Karen.

Can I ask for clarification: why exactly are you voting for me? Thanks, Miranda! I love your French Onion Dip. Please do share the recipe...soon.

What's your secret ingredient? Tastes like OMGUS.

[jimmynick]

I'm going with my feeling that Robert only tried to pretend to be suspicious of Cranberry Kendall yesterday. Autumn, too, makes a good point that Robert's vote against Krystal Kendall was meant as a vote against a useless townie, while hoping to lean on the results of her visit last night. I also still believe that his interpretation of Bob's death is not very plausible, so let's

Vote: Robert (jackjonespaw)

He's been in and out of the thread but not posting. I do hope he comes back soon so we can hear what he says in response to both me and Autumn.

[Hinckley]

In the interest of reaching a consensus, I'll

unvote: Miranda Beal (Darkdragon) and vote: Robert Stewart (JackJonespaw)

I concur with the concerns raised by Autumn and Adam.

Adam, you're a stone cold bitch voting for your brother or husband, or whatever he is, without even a mention of your relationship to him, whatever that is.

[Trekkie99]

3 hours ago, Darkdragon said:

First of all - I did explain my vote yesterday very clearly and concisely at the time it was placed.

That reminds me, you still haven't answered my question. 

Quote

I asked why I shouldn't have claimed.

Not whether or not my claim is true.

You stated "Role claim as a first post" as a reason for why you voted for me. Defend your reason.

I might be beating a dead horse here, but seeing your still touting your vote explanation as being sufficient, I'll go back to questioning your reasons.

[Hinckley]

23 minutes ago, Trekkie99 said:

That reminds me, you still haven't answered my question. 

I might be beating a dead horse here, but seeing your still touting your vote explanation as being sufficient, I'll go back to questioning your reasons.

Great point, Kendall. I'm glad I forgot to stop by yesterday and vote for you, and Autumn and Buocky also forgot, because then you might be dead. And I think you're a lot cooler today than I did yesterday. Just be glad I was picking Chad up from the police station again and forgot we were forming a lynch mob.

[Hinckley]

On 11/26/2019 at 7:43 PM, JackJonespaw said:

 I mean, besides Kendall, who kind-of-unless-she-was-lying saved herself by saying she has a useless role, why not Becky? It could have been any of us on Night 1, honestly.

I always think these games need more me, so I'm needlessly posting more that I've picked up about Robert. Self-awareness doesn't always beget self-improvement...

Here, Robert is referring to why Baucky was chosen as the night's target, or more specifically why not Beecky. In the predicate to his question he says that Kendall saved herself by claiming a useless role.

She saved herself from a night kill by claiming a useless role. Read it again.

He know she wasn't killed because she claimed her role was useless. It's almost as if he knows that Kendall is telling the truth because he know's she's a Townie and has no reason to be (unless-she-was) lying. And he seems to know why she wasn't night killed. I know your a man, Robert, put fix your skirt, your Freudian slip is showing.

Also slippy, in this quote (if you click the little arrow, you can see it. I already deleted the part where he says it) he talks about how many knitters are in our circle. Are we a book circle? No, but there's a knitting circle.

12 hours ago, jimmynick said:

7 and 4, surely?

Adam, nobody's name is Shirley.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. :blush:)

10 hours ago, fhomess said:

This vote doesn't accuse Kendall of being scum, it accuses Kendall of being a reckless townie.

Vote: Robert Stewart (JackJonespaw)

 

Bam, yeah Autumn! Get him. It looks like he has known Kendall was a Townie all along, knew her roleclaim was true and knows why she wasn't the night-kill target.

Get a rope.

Kyle, get a rope. Seriously, Kyle? That's an extension cord. A rope, please. Google it.

[JackJonespaw]

4 hours ago, jimmynick said:

He's been in and out of the thread but not posting. I do hope he comes back soon so we can hear what he says in response to both me and Autumn.

Sorry folks, what with the holiday coming up had an in-and-out kind of day. 

Let me do my best to dissuade y'all from your voting against me.

10 hours ago, fhomess said:

This vote doesn't accuse Kendall of being scum, it accuses Kendall of being a reckless townie.

So doing my research, there's a role called a vigilante. Meaning they're part of us in the book club, but they're able to try to take out members of the Knitting Club (obviously with various degrees of success.) Yesterday, Kendall said she had a useless role. Visiting someone, that's pretty much it. Now, early on, she revealed she had this role. A majority of the first day was spent talking about that. By the end of the day, I was suspicious of what Kendall had been saying the whole day. By trying to establish her role early and getting it out of the way so we could figure out who the others were, she'd placed a target on her. Townie or not.

Now, for the not-so-great part. Voting is mandantory. Rather than ending up with a two-vote penalty, I went against my better instinct (to never attempt a lynch on Day 1) and voted right at the end of the day (~2 hours before). Obviously a gamble, but voting for anyone other than who I thought was the most suspicious person of the day would have brought about way more problems than it was worth. You know, doing a joke vote or some such. Now, was it a good move? In retrospect, probably not, but who else would I have voted for at that moment? If it's between taking a shot in the dark with a low percent chance of getting a knitter (which wouldn't have happened anyway) or someone who I believed was a detriment to the town, despite being on our side? 

Well, time's is tough. It's not a move I'm proud of, but at the moment I thought it better than incurring a two-vote penalty. Gosh, sue me.

4 hours ago, jimmynick said:

I also still believe that his interpretation of Bob's death is not very plausible, so let's

Vote: Robert (jackjonespaw)

Gee, because it's a theory? Guys, anything I say isn't the end-all-be-all raison d'être, you know? I'm just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. And apparently y'all don't like spaghetti.

And to address most of what Autumn said, well, forgetfulness and incompetence shouldn't point to knitting. To being a bad player? Probably, but that's a meta conversation for another time.

1 minute ago, Hinckley said:

Here, Robert is referring to why Baucky was chosen as the night's target, or more specifically why not Beecky. In the predicate to his question he says that Kendall saved herself by claiming a useless role.

She saved herself from a night kill by claiming a useless role. Read it again.

I still do not see why this is so hard to believe. If I was a knitter (which I'm not, but by this point it seems unlikely anyone will believe me) I would see the playing field as something like this (a third knitter and third-party excluded, but the point still stands):

KNITTER KNITTER BOOKER(??) BOOKER(??) BOOKER(??) BOOKER(??) BOOKER(??) BOOKER(COMPULSIVE VISITOR)

Even just based on the definition of the compulsive visitor that was given during Day 1, the knitters would know that it's a useless role. And when there's the real power players somewhere in there - a vigilante, a watcher, etc. - why waste a kill on a useless role when you could shoot for the figurative meat and potatoes?

5 minutes ago, Hinckley said:

Also slippy, in this quote (if you click the little arrow, you can see it. I already deleted the part where he says it) he talks about how many knitters are in our circle. Are we a book circle? No, but there's a knitting circle.

Shoot, you got me. Though we do sit in a circle when we discuss the week's reading.

[Hinckley]

7 minutes ago, JackJonespaw said:

I still do not see why this is so hard to believe. If I was a knitter (which I'm not, but by this point it seems unlikely anyone will believe me) I would see the playing field as something like this (a third knitter and third-party excluded, but the point still stands):

KNITTER KNITTER BOOKER(??) BOOKER(??) BOOKER(??) BOOKER(??) BOOKER(??) BOOKER(COMPULSIVE VISITOR)

Even just based on the definition of the compulsive visitor that was given during Day 1, the knitters would know that it's a useless role. And when there's the real power players somewhere in there - a vigilante, a watcher, etc. - why waste a kill on a useless role when you could shoot for the figurative meat and potatoes?

It's impossible to believe. For you to get to this conclusion, even if you're Town trying to get inside the Scum's head, you have to know that Kendall is Town and that her roleclaim is real. You are still showing your Freudian slip. You just spelled it out even more clearly. You are still telling us that you know for a fact that Kendall's roleclaim is true. You cannot know that unless you are A. Scum or B. The Town Investigator.

Are you claiming Investigator? Do you need to research that like you did Vigilante? The Investigator can target one player at night and will learn their alignment in the morning.

Because that is the only way you can be making this assumption about the reason why Kendall wasn't night-killed and be Town.

[jimmynick]

8 minutes ago, JackJonespaw said:

So doing my research, there's a role called a vigilante.

Hold up. In context with the rest of the paragraph, this looks like a dead cat thrown on the table. Are you trying to insinuate something?

9 minutes ago, JackJonespaw said:

I'm just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

Why would you throw spaghetti and see what sticks unless you're trying to justify your own actions, looking at them from a townie perspective?

11 minutes ago, JackJonespaw said:

Shoot, you got me. Though we do sit in a circle when we discuss the week's reading. 

Really? I thought we arranged ourselves in an ellipse!

1 hour ago, Hinckley said:

Adam, you're a stone cold bitch voting for your brother or husband, or whatever he is, without even a mention of your relationship to him, whatever that is.

No need to make it kinky like that, he's just my daddy.

13 minutes ago, JackJonespaw said:

KNITTER KNITTER BOOKER(??) BOOKER(??) BOOKER(MAN) BOOKER(??) BOOKER(T WASHINGTON) BOOKER(COMPULSIVE VISITOR)

You missed a few flavours there

[Hinckley]

You all know I have to make my point to the nth degree. Here's more evidence that Jack is Scum and really revealed the Scum's reasoning in not killing Kendall.

On 11/26/2019 at 4:28 PM, JackJonespaw said:

 as little as I trust Kendall

 

On 11/26/2019 at 7:43 PM, JackJonespaw said:

 besides Kendall, who kind-of-unless-she-was-lying saved herself by saying she has a useless role,

 

22 minutes ago, JackJonespaw said:

 BOOKER(COMPULSIVE VISITOR)

You cannot have little trust for her in the first post, still be wondering if she's lying in the second post and believe her roleclaim in the third. They don't scan together.

You can't tell us you were trying to get in the Scum's heads and figured they didn't kill Kendall because she has a useless role, have any way of actually knowing her roleclaim was true, not believe her earlier and now put her in solid green to explain how you're reasoning the Scum's tactics.

You slipped up. You know the Scum's tactics because you are Scum. You know Kendall is telling the truth because you know she's a Townie and has no reason to lie. Go ahead an claim investigator now. I can't see anybody believing you after you've already revealed yourself as Scum.

Even Miranda, your Scum buddy, has to vote for you now!

[Trekkie99]

It feels like Rob isn't entirely convinced he's town himself.  Sorry if you've just had trouble keeping up mate.

Vote: Robert Stewart (JackJonesPaw)

Hey shouldn't it be Throw The Book At: So&So (So&So)? :-P

 

@Kristel darling, do give us a holler if your still alive dear.

[Hinckley]

Just now, Trekkie99 said:

Hey shouldn't it be Throw The Book At: So&So (So&So)? :-P

 

[Kristel]

57 minutes ago, Trekkie99 said:

@Kristel darling, do give us a holler if your still alive dear.

Still alive, just engrossed in a book that I can’t put down.  Will post and vote as soon as it ends.