Pirates Mafia II - Day One

[Robert Walsh]

Just now, Bob said:

Vote Count: 
Morgan Marchand - 1 (Zachary Mercier)
Robert Walsh - 3 (Paul LaPointe, Warren Pratt, Reginald Aston)
Ansel Michel - 1 (Ethan Dunn)
Liam Webb - 1 (Ansel Michel)
Kendall Odell - 1 (Reginald Aston)
Reginald Aston - 3 (Robert Walsh, Mitchell Lahore, Arthur Hargrave)

About 21 hours or so remain in Day One. A majority of 9 is required to lynch.

Reginald jumped to my humble self. Even the governor got tricked by that.

[Arthur Hargrave]

Whoo-wee nine is a big number to reach.  I have this horrible feeling it's gonna be like day three or some shit before we lynch someone.

[Ethan Dunn]

33 minutes ago, Robert Walsh said:

I have to reply to your view on Paul's ping towards me. Actually it is not a big deal he got pinged by me and voted for me. I'm totally not on Paul because I got a vote from him. It's only that others were seeing the context so intuitively that I just couldn't believe Paul would not see that I was not trying to make an argument out of thin air but refering to Morgan. Yes I wanted to move things forward, that's true. His whole first comment attitude told me he is smarter than that. But it can happen, for sure. Lets go with that, also he had no ground to take me for anything good. In this case why pushing aside my valid and patient questions? Also Morgan is still not a bad lead. Where is he? Did he just went full first comment accusational then left the game? How is it Paul not saying anything about the actual Morgan lead.

It looks to me like he is taking the comment you said into consideration. It's that he didn't vote and you did. And that was his pinge so he told us. That's what townies are supposed to do point out what pinges them. 

33 minutes ago, Robert Walsh said:

Anyway I was truly not going after Reginald at first. Getting that scumtell (according to me) from him was not the plan and was unexpected. And the fact that he sweot it under the rug makes it the most solid thing I myself have.

This pinges me Robert. What was the plan? Maybe I dont understand yet but I dont come in here and post with a plan. I respond to whats going on. Planning sounds scummy. Maybe I just misunderstand you. I was leaning town on you and I dont see what Reginald and Paul are voting for you for. I'd like to hear about your comment about the plan.

33 minutes ago, Robert Walsh said:

Also I'm following your debate with Ansel I assure you. And I totally see your point there. Ansel was much more consistent so far then Paul imho. But it seems we find each other's suspicion less suspicious. At least Ansel did answer your every questions, but he was truly not very exact and too open-ended for too many remarks until throwing a vote on Liam.

I dont know. I asked him the same question three times and he hasn't answered. 

[Morgan Marchand]

On 3/18/2020 at 11:22 PM, Ethan Dunn said:

I agree with squashy-face. Morgan do you think I'm placing a serious vote? Do you think that I believe squashy faces are Scummy? Voting immediately may be Scummy but you skipped over the reasoning which I would hope would be obvious was a joke.

My apologies all; lest my family face bouts of scurvy, we've had some issues to deal with. But now I am back for the traitor hunt. And unlike some (I recall a De Anna of Troi or something like that in a book I read, who liked to reply to people without being fully caught up) I found myself needing to read many pages before responding.

No, I did not think it was a serious vote. However, in my experience, scummy traitors like to throw out names to see what sticks. Day 1 often has people lynched for little reason other than someone names them and a bandwagon forms. So the scum like to toss out possibilities trying to get it started. In that sense, it's serious enough. 

On 3/19/2020 at 4:59 PM, Arthur Hargrave said:

Not helping your case which was nonexistent prior to you making it with these latest remarks of yours. 

Vote: Ethan Dunn

Unlike others, I found Ethan's explanation satisfactory. His rating on my scum-o-meter has been lowered, at least for now. 

On 3/19/2020 at 9:47 PM, Liam Webb said:

Do you guys hear our flag?? It’s whispering to me! 
it said

“Protect... me... Don’t... vote... yet... it... is... foolish...”

You started off this nonsense of a talking flag with this. When does the flag say we should vote? You later push for not lynching - I can see the argument, but we have enough that we can afford to sacrifice a few in our quest to rid the land of traitorous scum. 

12 hours ago, Zachary Mercier said:

Good morning boys! It is as I suspected and very hard to keep up with all of the arguing with my little pocket porthole. There have been some good points made about a few folks, but having looked back at everything up to this point,  the most triggering to me is Morgan's quick jump to calling someone scummy for what the rest of us seem to clearly see as a joke.  I haven't even seen a clear defense about this either, waiting for your buddies to help you reword your defence maybe?

Vote: Morgan Marchand

See above. Happy? I need no one to help me defend myself, nor do I have scum buddies to help. I may be a simple loyal soldier, but I can read and write just fine on my own. 

11 hours ago, Reginald Aston said:

I find your logic flawed when it comes to voting. It is our most powerful tool, when used correctly! What voting pattern comes from a day one vote? The scum votes for townies, the townies vote for random people hoping to hit a scum. But all it does is give the scum fodder for future arguments about why we should lynch an innocent town person. Voting on completely random speculation (which is all we have at this point) only adds randomness to the voting pattern in future days.

I am willing to vote on day one, I just hope that in future days we can look back on my comments and realize that my vote is completely random.

Vote: Kendall Odell - because all that clashing is hurting my ears!

Ping! goes my scum radar. Ok, so it's just my ears, since radar won't be invented for centuries, but you get the point. Yes, day 1 voting is a crapshoot. But you're deliberately making it worse with blatantly random votes. 'twould be better to not vote at all, than this meddling with the records. 

[Robert Walsh]

Just now, Ethan Dunn said:

It looks to me like he is taking the comment you said into consideration. It's that he didn't vote and you did. And that was his pinge so he told us. That's what townies are supposed to do point out what pinges them. 

That was not my problem. Let me clear up that first vote again. I thought Morgan was pseudovoting and warning. I wanted to point this out, but pointing this out that time without action would have been just another pseudovoting. So I said I'm going to vote this out for this reason and get things started. I was expecting something from Morgan from that pressure, maybe to give us a better tell. Being absent might be a good tell actually. Anyway, if this pinged Paul then he was just also not pseudovoting with that one. Okay. I had no problem with that. I did not like his reason tough. There was already talk about Morgan and I was doing it too. It was not me creating something out of thin air to jump on somebody and I did not push anybody on it with more accusations. I just said the same thing as I'm saying now: I'm eager to see a response from Morgan.

Just now, Ethan Dunn said:

This pinges me Robert. What was the plan? Maybe I dont understand yet but I dont come in here and post with a plan. I respond to whats going on. Planning sounds scummy. Maybe I just misunderstand you. I was leaning town on you and I dont see what Reginald and Paul are voting for you for. I'd like to hear about your comment about the plan.

More like a test.

He DID take me out of context at first, putting the Morgan quote aside. I tought about it, took a look at Paul's other pesky comments and I tought: this is might be a scum tactic so let's ask after this. I was waiting for a response, but got nothing. Instead got a feeling that Paul is not being inactive, just following the conversation and waiting for random moments to strike in. Picking on somebody and disappearing for quite a long time is suspicious: like you would not even care about the answer only searching for a different angle to confuse. So my idea was nothing complex just to quote something else from him, to check it out: is he lingering around or just truly away not able to answer? I've also realized his picky question for Reginald was aggressive, but Reginald ignored it sneakily. So I asked about that one. I also appended the same post my question to Paul again to compare which one will he respond to if he bites on it.

Reginald answered saying he did not want to defend against ME, while it was clearly a quote from Paul so I tought 'Now.. this is interesting'. I think he was so tryhard to BS around for couple of posts now he just quickly threw in something logically incontestable thing, not even checking the quote out. Now this is not an evidence, but the bests thing I've got so far by interacting with people so went with it immediately with a vote. He said he is under no pression because he is not guilty. But being under pression has nothing to do about your guiltiness. He was obviously under pressure because I made it so. This felt tryhard again. (You Ethan are pressuring me too now for example, because you have valid questions, this is how it goes). His revenge vote and whole behaviour did not loose me on this catch. All he would have to say that he forgot. Everyone could have mislook something. But he panicked and that's just feeding my tells in my eyes. I think scums are poking around but under pressure they are gettting inconsistent more easily. And Reginald already made some inconsistent statment about voting around randomly. I did not even understand where he wanted to go with that. 

Anyway Paul DID come to respond almost immedietaly and he did not respond to my question for the Morgan context thing, but gave me a picky oneliner again instead and jumped on my thing with Reginald, saying "oh yeah, Reginald is scummy, but Robert YOU are still more scummy'. Why am I stilly more scummy if I had a totally valid question already waiting for him for the second time and he just ignored that again? Why not answering the question, but poiting out my scummieness instead? Clearly his ping for me was not the strangest thing on the table at this moment, and a "context is irrevelant" thing which I got after pushing him for answers. So he kept voting me while Reginald also gave the revenge vote for me. I was not going after 'my votes', more likely I earned them. So I thought 'okay, this is maybe not a coincidence'. I just wanted to ask my questions and I think they did not like this at all.

You see I've got another vote from Warren, but nothing twisty was about it. His idea about jumping on a majority was no far-fetched at all. More of us were talking about the Morgan thing. Only I was the first to give it a vote. I pointed this out to Warren, he made no response, but I did not felt he was nitpicking me like a scum would have done.

Maybe I'm being just tunnel visioned here. I have to admit that. But if someone goes around saying inconsistent things only to behave cheeky when questions follow it is a tell for me.

 

 

[Morgan Marchand]

In other thoughts...

1. William, where art thou? 

2. Liam, what is this obsession with the flag? Beautiful though it may be, it's enough to make me ponder if ye may have a 3rd party role of jester (or similar) where you are trying to get lynched. Or you have a role-modifier that forces you to mention the flag in every post. 'tis odd, to say the least.

 

[Liam Webb]

This is what Flag and I think.

Even though Paul says he thinks Reginald is scummy he is voting with him against Robert. I don't understand the connection with Paul and Reginald, it feels like something is there. Flag still doesn't want a lynching today but its getting harder to resist the temptation with the good discussion we are having.

3 minutes ago, Morgan Marchand said:

In other thoughts...

1. William, where art thou? 

2. Liam, what is this obsession with the flag? Beautiful though it may be, it's enough to make me ponder if ye may have a 3rd party role of jester (or similar) where you are trying to get lynched. Or you have a role-modifier that forces you to mention the flag in every post. 'tis odd, to say the least.

 

What is a 3rd party role? I am the Flag bearer. It is my job to take care of Flag.

[Robert Walsh]

Now, now Morgan is here. I've read what you just said and since I've voted you first I must say you clearly had a lot of time to think of the best return answers. Talking about scum-o-meters and suspicous-o-meters in your first post when it was quite obvious to point out was overly cheeky. Then disappearing when heat is coming in was just as so.

But you've stated your cause and I really cannot say anything to it now. They're concise.

[Arthur Hargrave]

55 minutes ago, Morgan Marchand said:

Or you have a role-modifier that forces you to mention the flag in every post.

Oooooh. That would suck. 

[Ethan Dunn]

1 hour ago, Morgan Marchand said:

Ping! goes my scum radar. 

Oh ping! That makes mores sense. I thought you guys were saying pinge. But its ping like a radar. I get it. I'd have said blipped because radar makes blips. That's scummy it blips me. On board now. Carry on.

1 hour ago, Liam Webb said:

Even though Paul says he thinks Reginald is scummy he is voting with him against Robert. I don't understand the connection with Paul and Reginald, it feels like something is there. Flag still doesn't want a lynching today but its getting harder to resist the temptation with the good discussion we are having.

Whats with you? You said you didn't want anybody to vote. Then you said you said you just didn't want a lynch which isn't what you said. Now you say you want to vote but Flag is stopping you. Look we all love Flag but vote if you have a suspicion. Your trying to get us not to vote and then going back and forth on what you said and now voicing a suspicion without voting and blaming it on Flag blips me.

[Liam Webb]

17 minutes ago, Ethan Dunn said:

Whats with you? You said you didn't want anybody to vote. Then you said you said you just didn't want a lynch which isn't what you said. Now you say you want to vote but Flag is stopping you. Look we all love Flag but vote if you have a suspicion. Your trying to get us not to vote and then going back and forth on what you said and now voicing a suspicion without voting and blaming it on Flag blips me.

The Flag doesn’t want a reckless lynching. We have 0 evidence and it hasn’t even been a day yet. I haven’t gone back and forth. Not voting means we don’t have a reckless lynching. I am saying that some people are suspicious based off the comments they have made today. Suspicious comments is not enough Evidence to make a vote yet. 

[Ethan Dunn]

On 3/20/2020 at 12:25 AM, Liam Webb said:

No voting today.

6 hours ago, Liam Webb said:

The flag doesn’t want a day 1 lynch.

1 hour ago, Liam Webb said:

Flag still doesn't want a lynching today but its getting harder to resist the temptation with the good discussion we are having.

Just now, Liam Webb said:

I haven’t gone back and forth. 

Yeah you have.

[Liam Webb]

Just now, Ethan Dunn said:

Yeah you have.

No?

[Kendall Odell]

*Bash* *Clash* *Bash* 

3 hours ago, Liam Webb said:

 Suspicious comments is not enough Evidence to make a vote yet. 

?? It absolutely is! At least for the first few days when we don’t have the results of many night actions to go off. What would you class as enough evidence to make a vote this early on on our quest? It’s hard to say whether you sitting on the fence is you genuinely trying to be helpful or not wanting to be responsible for the death of a townie so you can shift the blame onto others in the upcoming days.

7 hours ago, Bob said:

Vote Count: 
Morgan Marchand - 1 (Zachary Mercier)
Robert Walsh - 3 (Paul LaPointe, Warren Pratt, Reginald Aston)
Ansel Michel - 1 (Ethan Dunn)
Liam Webb - 1 (Ansel Michel)
Kendall Odell - 1 (Reginald Aston)
Reginald Aston - 3 (Robert Walsh, Mitchell Lahore, Arthur Hargrave)

About 21 hours or so remain in Day One. A majority of 9 is required to lynch.

Don’t forget my vote for Morgan!

Reginald’s vote for me did ping me slightly as well. He talks about how voting must be done correctly. But then goes on to make a completely random vote. Albeit that has been changed since. 

*bash* *bash* *clash*

[Robert Walsh]

3 hours ago, Kendall Odell said:

*Bash* *Clash* *Bash* 

Reginald’s vote for me did ping me slightly as well. He talks about how voting must be done correctly. But then goes on to make a completely random vote. Albeit that has been changed since. 

*bash* *bash* *clash*

That change was just a vote for me 2 hours later, having proof of me being a traitor.

[Bob]

Vote Count: 
Morgan Marchand - 2 (Zachary Mercier, Kendall Odell)
Robert Walsh - 3 (Paul LaPointe, Warren Pratt, Reginald Aston)
Ansel Michel - 1 (Ethan Dunn)
Liam Webb - 1 (Ansel Michel)
Kendall Odell - 1 (Reginald Aston)
Reginald Aston - 3 (Robert Walsh, Mitchell Lahore, Arthur Hargrave)

About 10 hours or so remain in Day One. A majority of 9 is required to lynch. If I missed your vote, please let me know who you voted for and where. It would also be easier if you'd have the votes not surrounded by a ton of text.

[William Mitchell]

9 hours ago, Morgan Marchand said:

In other thoughts...

1. William, where art thou?

Hi, I was down in the hold of the Carribean Clipper, counting the rum ration (hic). You were all making so much commotion, that I had a hard time counting. I can report that the current supply are 15 barrels of rum.

[Robert Walsh]

39 minutes ago, William Mitchell said:

Hi, I was down in the hold of the Carribean Clipper, counting the rum ration (hic). You were all making so much commotion, that I had a hard time counting. I can report that the current supply are 15 barrels of rum.

Have you started the counting from 30 barrels?

[Morgan Marchand]

11 hours ago, Liam Webb said:

This is what Flag and I think.

Even though Paul says he thinks Reginald is scummy he is voting with him against Robert. I don't understand the connection with Paul and Reginald, it feels like something is there. Flag still doesn't want a lynching today but its getting harder to resist the temptation with the good discussion we are having.

What is a 3rd party role? I am the Flag bearer. It is my job to take care of Flag.

So take care of the flag. It's still an inanimate object - that means it can't talk. So the fact that you're "communicating with it" worries me - are you insane? Can we trust anything coming out of you? Or should we throw you overboard in case your insanity is contagious?

9 hours ago, Ethan Dunn said:

Yeah you have.

Technically, what you quoted showed a gradual change from position A to position B, not any flip-flopping, which requires going A to B and back to A at least, if not more. 

52 minutes ago, William Mitchell said:

Hi, I was down in the hold of the Carribean Clipper, counting the rum ration (hic). You were all making so much commotion, that I had a hard time counting. I can report that the current supply are 15 barrels of rum.

Welcome back to fresh air. Any thoughts on the hundred-plus things people said while you were below decks?

[Reginald Aston]

11 hours ago, Morgan Marchand said:

Ping! goes my scum radar. Ok, so it's just my ears, since radar won't be invented for centuries, but you get the point. Yes, day 1 voting is a crapshoot. But you're deliberately making it worse with blatantly random votes. 'twould be better to not vote at all, than this meddling with the records. 

Really? A random vote from Ethan is okay but a random vote from me is not? Everyone who has said voting on day one is not wise has been ripped to shreds. I agree that voting on day one can be foolishness, but I also see the reasoning behind those who think voting is essential. I'm voicing my opinion on the matter, but still dropping a vote. 

11 hours ago, Robert Walsh said:

Reginald answered saying he did not want to defend against ME, while it was clearly a quote from Paul so I tought 'Now.. this is interesting'. I think he was so tryhard to BS around for couple of posts now he just quickly threw in something logically incontestable thing, not even checking the quote out. Now this is not an evidence, but the bests thing I've got so far by interacting with people so went with it immediately with a vote. He said he is under no pression because he is not guilty. But being under pression has nothing to do about your guiltiness. He was obviously under pressure because I made it so. This felt tryhard again. (You Ethan are pressuring me too now for example, because you have valid questions, this is how it goes). His revenge vote and whole behaviour did not loose me on this catch. All he would have to say that he forgot. Everyone could have mislook something. But he panicked and that's just feeding my tells in my eyes. I think scums are poking around but under pressure they are gettting inconsistent more easily. And Reginald already made some inconsistent statment about voting around randomly. I did not even understand where he wanted to go with that. 

Again, really? Here's the original post from you I responded to:

You quoted Paul, but addressed me. I simply replied to your attack. Why do you think my response was a mistake? You called me out as being defensive. I will certainly defend my innocence, but being called defensive has a negative connotation. I haven't tried to defend my answer to you since it seemed to be another straw-man argument you are so found of. If anything pinges me as scummy, your straw-man arguments are at the top of the list.

[Morgan Marchand]

Just now, Reginald Aston said:

Really? A random vote from Ethan is okay but a random vote from me is not? Everyone who has said voting on day one is not wise has been ripped to shreds. I agree that voting on day one can be foolishness, but I also see the reasoning behind those who think voting is essential. I'm voicing my opinion on the matter, but still dropping a vote. 

When did I say other random votes were ok? The difference though (since yes, basically all day 1 votes are without merit) is that people give some sort of reason for their votes. That gives us something to consider in the future, once we know alignments for certain. Your vote was even more random than anyone else - which may not be *scummy* but it's certainly not trying to help out us loyalists. 

[Arthur Hargrave]

20 minutes ago, Morgan Marchand said:

Or should we throw you overboard in case your insanity is contagious?

Oh f*ck as if we didn't already have enough to worry about in that regard. 

Too dark? Sorry.

[Ansel Michel]

I voted for Liam earlier, and seeing we might not reach a majority vote in eight hours, I'm completely fine with standing by my vote and keeping it where it is, as he's acting odd.

[Warren Pratt]

A new day had dawned and my new shift at sentry had started.  The sun had finally come out from behind the clouds heartening me slightly, though the raucous din coming from the drill square was enough to wake the dead themselves.  Having watched this go on for hours (felt like days even) I could certainly conclude that some men (and women) suffered the curse of Babylon.  While just a wee nipper, my grandpa had warned me about those who talked overly much. Normally they tried to blanket the truth is layers of nonsense he explained.  A true person doesn't do such things and with the dignity only the weight of years can give, who pronounced to me:

"Never say ten words when one will do!"

I've always lived by that adage. So after sifting through buckets of verbal nonsense, something struck me about what Private Marchand has said.

11 hours ago, Morgan Marchand said:

No, I did not think it was a serious vote. However, in my experience, scummy traitors like to throw out names to see what sticks.

An interesting thought, since the exact thing occurred not a moment later. 

11 hours ago, Robert Walsh said:

You see I've got another vote from Warren, but nothing twisty was about it. His idea about jumping on a majority was no far-fetched at all. More of us were talking about the Morgan thing. Only I was the first to give it a vote. I pointed this out to Warren, he made no response, but I did not felt he was nitpicking me like a scum would have done.

I certainly found this a curious turn of events.  What I'd normally just put down as a polite acknowledgment that I exist, I now examined with different eyes.  Was this a backhanded way to throw my name out as a fish hook of sorts to see what he could drag up as a defense, or perhaps a warning not to comment lest I be found to be a "nit-picking scummy"?  Hard to say for certain, but it did not allay me fears about him.

((My vote on him stands))

[Mitchell LaHore]

11 hours ago, Morgan Marchand said:

Ping! goes my scum radar. Ok, so it's just my ears, since radar won't be invented for centuries, but you get the point. Yes, day 1 voting is a crapshoot. But you're deliberately making it worse with blatantly random votes. 'twould be better to not vote at all, than this meddling with the records. 

Why are you pinged but not voting?  If someone is pinging your scumdar, you should vote for them.  Calling out ping and not voting is trying to hide your suspicions for later.

10 hours ago, Liam Webb said:

The Flag doesn’t want a reckless lynching. We have 0 evidence and it hasn’t even been a day yet. I haven’t gone back and forth. Not voting means we don’t have a reckless lynching. I am saying that some people are suspicious based off the comments they have made today. Suspicious comments is not enough Evidence to make a vote yet. 

Not voting means that you are unwilling to take a stand, to put your own thoughts out there for everyone to see.  Voting on Day 1 is usually spread around, and right now the chance of conviction is very low.  Your unwillingness to establish a concrete public opinion is highly questionable and unhelpful.

1 hour ago, William Mitchell said:

Hi, I was down in the hold of the Carribean Clipper, counting the rum ration (hic). You were all making so much commotion, that I had a hard time counting. I can report that the current supply are 15 barrels of rum.

You've been listening all this time and this is what you have to tell us?