Pirates Mafia II - Day Two

[Robert Walsh]

40 minutes ago, Morgan Marchand said:

What? The scum know EXACTLY who is town and who is scum, except for the rare games where they have recruit abilities and that's not allowed in this one. So yes, the scum know who all the innocents are. They don't know if a person is vanilla town or "power role" town, but they know who are town. 

The rules did not say anything about this. Is it like a standard setup here or you're just assuming? @Bob can you confirm this? 

Because in this case:

1 hour ago, Kendall Odell said:

*bash* *clash* *bang*

I did notice that as well. But then Morgan has been silent today so who knows? 

*bash* *bash* *bash*

What did you notice as well Kendall? I myself pointed out that this statement from Zachary does not add up. Yes, Morgan was absent but this coming from Zachary is a joke. I've said it twice, even NOW Zachary has made no questions towards Morgan to clear anything up about his first post. Morgan did come back and shared his cause. Zachary did not mention anything about it. Not even like "I believe it", or "It is still not enough for me, because....". Nothing. He just comes in out of the blue with his very second post in-game, saying he is still onto Morgan because of that first post. Since that more then 250 posts were contributed.

If you've read the previous posts Kendall you clearly saw I've pointed this out. Saying that the Scum shut Morgan up could be very much true. However Zachary was even fishy while telling that, saying he meant to implicate this specifically, while obviously not, and I did not misquote him, since he said I did.

Morgan just posted now clearing up his absence again, which is either a huge lie, or considering scurvy issues, the simple truth.

So Kendall I think it is interesting that after all these, you just quote this part from Zachary and state how you noticed this as well, like this would've been such a great remark from him. It was not.

[Ethan Dunn]

2 hours ago, Robert Walsh said:

The rules did not say anything about this. Is it like a standard setup here or you're just assuming? @Bob can you confirm this? 

The scum all know who the town are. The rules wouldn't need to say it. The town is everyone who is not them.

[Robert Walsh]

16 minutes ago, Ethan Dunn said:

The scum all know who the town are. The rules wouldn't need to say it. The town is everyone who is not them.

But do we have to assume they all know each other as well without exception?

[Ethan Dunn]

Since there are no recruits probably? If there was a traitor they would need to recruit him but Bob say there are no recruit action.

[Kendall Odell]

3 hours ago, Robert Walsh said:

 

Morgan just posted now clearing up his absence again, which is either a huge lie, or considering scurvy issues, the simple truth.

So Kendall I think it is interesting that after all these, you just quote this part from Zachary and state how you noticed this as well, like this would've been such a great remark from him. It was not.

*bang* *bang* *bang*

I think you’re reading into what I said too much. When I said that I “noticed that as well”. I wasn’t trying to make it out like Zachary had made some great point or anything. The point I was making was that I noticed that there was a long gap between Morgan’s initial post and his defence. Which was (likely) down to scurvy issues. I quoted the wrong person there. 

The scum are the informed majority. So they would be aware of who is town. But Robert has a point as they may not be aware of who their teammates are.

*bang* *bang* *bang*

[Ethan Dunn]

The blocker did turn out to be a jailkeeper. 

[Warren Pratt]

I paused walking the battlements for a moment and peered up at the sun.  "I wonder what time it is?"  I murmured to no one in particular.

@Bob

[Ethan Dunn]

17 minutes ago, Kendall Odell said:

But Robert has a point as they may not be aware of who their teammates are.

I don't think this is true. How would that work in a game with no recruit action?

[Zachary Mercier]

4 hours ago, Robert Walsh said:

Morgan just posted now clearing up his absence again, which is either a huge lie, or considering scurvy issues, the simple truth.

I believe him, I'm in exactly the same situation. It is not as i had expected, much less free time to watch these days than what I was led to believe I would have.  I'm almost out of break time right now, as a matter of fact.  I don't think it points to anyone being scum or not just by having a reason to be inactive. I could be active scum or inactive scum, active town or inactive town. It doesn't make a lot of difference.  However, when someone does something that looks like a scum slip-up and then goes silent, that's more suspicious to me.

I do feel that a lot of my words and replies from yesterday were taken completely wrong and twisted, but I really don't have it in me to go back and respond to everything. I'm sorry, but I know from experience that there is nothing i can say that won't be taken and twisted again. This is my first headache free day all week and I won't let the mafia change that, today i'm zen.   There were some comments I read from yesterday that were saying me lurking wasn't helping - I'm not lurking.  If i'm around I'm responding, if I'm not responding I'm not around. It's as simple as that.

 

[Bob]

Vote Count: 

Elijah Hendry - 1 (Warren Pratt)

About 23 hours remain in this day. 

[Robert Walsh]

7 minutes ago, Warren Pratt said:

I paused walking the battlements for a moment and peered up at the sun.  "I wonder what time it is?"  I murmured to no one in particular.

@Bob

I think the last third of Day 2 has just started. Considering the majority of players are totally not being active I assume that a sh*tton of private scheming must be going around.

Anyway if not being already late maybe this is the time to decide whether we want to take votes or not. It is still our only weapon - to our best knowledge - which can catch a traitor. I've already addressed my distrust against Paul. Currently I have no evidence to support this hunch.

Also I want to point out that Elijah implicated, Paul and I might have stirred the pot together. He leaned towards voting for Paul, today voted again for him, being quite consistent so far. Only to - without giving any reasons - withdraw that vote after. No words from him since. This is quite interesting I must say.

But before this went down you said this, Warren:

14 hours ago, Warren Pratt said:

To me, Elijah Hendry's behaviour was striking me as one calmly going about a defense.  Which was strange as he had not truly been pressured yet.  His voting for Paul certainly seemed without much basis at all.  While it was early yet, I decided to shine the spotlight on him:

VOTE: Elijah Hendry

Now this is even more interesting. You said you wanted to accuse me, but had to figure something out before. Then you voted for Elijah instead.

For the town's notice, this is my read about this lovely tetrarchy and I hope I'm not leading us astray with this theory: I think at least one of us, Warren, Elijah, Paul and Robert (being me) must be a scum. There is an information I was told about Paul which I do not feel ready to disclose yet - being that it is no evidence yet to anything to any context yet I'm aware of -, but if I end up dead tomorrow I know for a fact that this information will arise regardless.

Considering this: Do you have Warren to add anything more specific about your vote on Elijah? Because clearly I think a spotlight on him and us should be resolved in a way this very day. Of course we might be just all townies, being at each other's throats. Who can say?

[Ethan Dunn]

On 3/21/2020 at 6:10 PM, William Mitchell said:

Only a hundred? It is almost a good thing that I probably have a case of the scurvy, so I can lie down and ponder all the vote and unvotes. Why is that? For later arguments and quotable posts in case some scum buddy get suspected? For the record, I find Ethan Dunn adding most chaos, so I will Vote: Ethan Dunn

Okay, this is a very good point. We talked at the same time.

On 3/21/2020 at 6:27 PM, William Mitchell said:

Oh, look what I found, when I went looking for the communication and vote/unvote between you and Ansel Michel. I read a book some time ago where a couple of thugs accused each other early on, so one would look innocent if they found proof on the other.
You did not want it to be recorded in the tally, because it is easier to go back and discover you mean? Is Hargrave also in on it?

Vote: William Mitchell

He served us WIFOM and I find that very weird. I mentioned this earlier. William has not responded. His vote was weird to agree with me right after and then accuse me and Arthur right after it. I PMed him to ask if he would like to discuss further since the day ended and he was still reading. He read the PM but never responded. He has not been here today and I think he is trying to fly under the radar.

I'm still concerned about Paul's posts about the killer. I think he would also be a good lynch today.

[Mitchell LaHore]

For the record, I think it highly unlikely that we would have two town blockers and a bus driver.  If we have two blockers, one is scum.  If we have a blocker and a jailkeeper, I'd still be highly suspect of one of them.  I don't get the impression that Ethan made up the bus driver, so for now, I believe that role exists.

I would have no qualms about voting William Mitchell off, but I want to follow a different tack for now.

On 3/24/2020 at 9:18 AM, Mitchell LaHore said:

Coming back to this, I like this group as an area to focus on if we have nothing else of interest.  Warren is trying to be helpful by providing a group to focus on.  If he's scum, I'm sure he's hoping that by calling out a group he's a part of, we'll be slightly more likely to ignore him.

Zachary I haven't gotten a detailed read on but seems to want us to ignore Robert's role in starting the wagon on Reginald.  It was an early vote and the wagon didn't get going for awhile, but he did encourage people to keep it moving forward.  He seems committed on his Morgan is scum read.  Paul called Zachary out for coming in and voting, then disappearing again.

Elijah has been very middle of the road to me.  He seems to be saying things without picking sides on them.

Liam... I do wonder how much a scum would put themselves out there with their commitment to no lynching even to the point of not voting.  I'm still not happy about the non-vote and his lack of willingness to express any real opinions.  I want to see more from him today for sure.

I'd be curious to hear how others see this group of four.

I haven't seen a whole lot in response to this... although a few folks have made comment. That said, just about everyone in this group of four has said more since.  So my thoughts on these folks at this point, in reverse order of last time... because why not?

Liam - I don't feel like Liam has done much to change his approach today.  He seems more open to the idea of convicting someone, but I don't get the sense that he's really eager to put his mind out there as far as real opinions go.

Elijah - He was the person to suggest that this might be role madness, which seems like a bit of an odd thing to jump to.  This came up after Ethan announced the bus driver and that he had separately received a block claim.  He's clearly paying attention to what's going on, but that kind of leap seems strange after Paul had claimed vanilla.  He didn't seem concerned about the vanilla claim contradicting his role madness theory when he first suggested it.

Zachary - Far more active today... I feel like he's trying to state how he feels on things and I haven't seen anything that pings me significantly.

Warren - Warren voted for Elijah, stating that Elijah was perhaps pushing too hard to defend himself to Paul's reaction, but really it was Paul reacting to Elijah in the same way that Warren is accusing Elijah of.  Is this a soft defense of Paul?  It doesn't take much for me to see it that way.

Vote: Warren Pratt

[Warren Pratt]

I have decide to break character here, (though I have REALLY been enjoying it), for the sake of clarity.  Too important a moment.

The highest of my list of suspects are Robert Walsh and Elijah Hendry.  Robert for behaviour yesterday and and fishing earlier in day 2; Elijah for behaviour patterns in both days.  But as I have stated a few times, we have the opportunity to narrow our focus on the persons who did not vote for a lynch yesterday.  Past experience is that scum split their votes for protection so this is a golden chance to take.  So I proposed that we lynch one of Elijah, Zacchary, or myself (Warren)  If the first proves wrong, we move on the next on the list until we get the scum. It also doesn't mean I have exonerated Robert in my eyes btw.  I just am going with the better percentages.

Now since I have placed my head on the block (Mitchell's vote came out while I was typing and I'm fine with it.  My being lynched still helps with the day 1 non-lynchers group approach I want us to adopt), I'd best start sharing information before I am removed.  I have been in contact privately with two players and both reached out to me.  More importantly however, I asked for two rules clarifications from Bob which have now come back.  I obviously can't quote what was said, but I can state the following in my words:

 

1. Players would NOT be informed why a redirect occurred, nor who had done so.  They would only see the night action result.

2.  I truly did not want to make a role claim this early, but it is the only way to truly explain our situation.  My role is BODYGUARD, with a twist - on a successful block I die in the target's place.  I asked for a clarification on this as well; neither the initial target nor killer would be given any indication on what had occurred. 

3. What I theorize happened is that Ansel acted night 1 with his role.  Scum were confused as to what occurred when their initial target survived and have spent today trying to uncover what thwarted them.

4. I am pretty sure Bob has created a merry bit on mayhem for us with a number of roles tied into redirection.  You tricky boy!

5. Lastly, Ethan is one of the two who contacted me privately.  He didn't provide me any information at all, but just asked nonchalantly about my role-playing and stringing out the conversation to see if I told him something.  Its a good tactic and one an aggressive scum would use imho.

 

So let's circle back and look at this:

On 3/24/2020 at 12:23 PM, Ethan Dunn said:

Here's what I've learned.

Ansel wasn't the kill target last night, I was. The target was redirected from me to Ansel. The scum know this the town should too. My concern here is that the scum have a bus driver, drove me to Ansel but it was a vig or SK that targeted me and killed Ansel instead and the real scum kill was blocked or the target protected. Now the scum bus driver trying to buddy up to me.

Ethan could NOT have known a redirect had occurred specifically from him to Ansel.  In fact he could NOT know one had happened unless he was the scum/killer or the alleged bus driver himself, and if he was the bus driver, 1) why is he bringing it up in public because he knew what happened 2) why did he do it in the first place?  I did not use my role yesterday because I quickly realized the confusion it would cause when analyzing voting trends - it was to be a last resort for me.

So I now admit I lied in my first sentence.  Robert Walsh and Elijah Hendry are actually secondary on my list of suspects at present because I accuse Ethan Dunn of being scum straight out.

Unvote: Elijah Hendry

Vote: Ethan Dunn

 

And since I am now sticking my neck out, my other message was a claim that a block had occurred last night.  They said they had only 90% certainty though, so I am not certain what weight I am putting to it yet.  However it did not involve either Ethan or Ansel.

[Arthur Hargrave]

Power on? Y/n
Y
- - -
Welcome!
- - -
All systems online
Caffine status: Fueling

[Benjamin Samuels]

42 minutes ago, Warren Pratt said:

Ethan could NOT have known a redirect had occurred specifically from him to Ansel.  In fact he could NOT know one had happened unless he was the scum/killer or the alleged bus driver himself, ...

Or the bus driver told him, as Ethan suggested happened:  

On 3/25/2020 at 4:02 AM, Ethan Dunn said:

Somebody PM me and told. me that they are a bus driver and redirected actions targeting me to Ansel and Ansel is dead. 

 

42 minutes ago, Warren Pratt said:

And since I am now sticking my neck out, my other message was a claim that a block had occurred last night.  They said they had only 90% certainty though, so I am not certain what weight I am putting to it yet.  However it did not involve either Ethan or Ansel.

I was also contacted with a claim that a block had occurred.  This was a very brief conversation because it felt like the person was fishing for info on roles.

[Arthur Hargrave]

Just now, Benjamin Samuels said:

This was a very brief conversation because it felt like the person was fishing for info on roles.

I've heard they've done the same with a lot of people.

[Benjamin Samuels]

53 minutes ago, Warren Pratt said:

2.  I truly did not want to make a role claim this early, but it is the only way to truly explain our situation.  My role is BODYGUARD, with a twist - on a successful block I die in the target's place.  I asked for a clarification on this as well; neither the initial target nor killer would be given any indication on what had occurred. 

The normal version of bodyguard sees the bodyguard dying if the one he or she is protecting is targeted for a kill.  Are you suggesting the twist is that you block or that you also die if the person you target is targeted for a block?  Can you clarify the twist?

[Liam Webb]

I think Ethan and Warren are telling the truth. Flagy and I don’t have any reason to doubt their stories. 

[Arthur Hargrave]

[Benjamin Samuels]

Just now, Liam Webb said:

I think Ethan and Warren are telling the truth. Flagy and I don’t have any reason to doubt their stories. 

One just voted for the other because they were telling lies.  What are you saying?

[Ethan Dunn]

1 hour ago, Warren Pratt said:

 

Ethan could NOT have known a redirect had occurred specifically from him to Ansel. 

And I don't know as I've said every time I talked about it. Welcome outside of your novel. Maybe you can read closer now too.

I think there are two claims of role cop and the people I'm talking to in private are too dense to see it. Trying to get to the bottom of it.

I think Paul should be lynched today.

1 hour ago, Warren Pratt said:

2.  I truly did not want to make a role claim this early, but it is the only way to truly explain our situation.  My role is BODYGUARD, with a twist - on a successful block I die in the target's place.  I asked for a clarification on this as well; neither the initial target nor killer would be given any indication on what had occurred. 

That's not a twist. The bodyguard dies when his target is targeted for a kill. The protector doesn't. Are you suggesting we had two bodyguards?

2 hours ago, Mitchell LaHore said:

Warren - Warren voted for Elijah, stating that Elijah was perhaps pushing too hard to defend himself to Paul's reaction, but really it was Paul reacting to Elijah in the same way that Warren is accusing Elijah of.  Is this a soft defense of Paul?  It doesn't take much for me to see it that way.

Vote: Warren Pratt

I get a town read from Warren and Elijah so I don't think we should vote for either of them.

I also wouldn't suggest voting for Zachary as he has spoken to me in private to avoid being nitpicked and the things he say makes sense to me. I lean town on him to.

[Ethan Dunn]

1 hour ago, Warren Pratt said:

5. Lastly, Ethan is one of the two who contacted me privately.  He didn't provide me any information at all, but just asked nonchalantly about my role-playing and stringing out the conversation to see if I told him something.  Its a good tactic and one an aggressive scum would use imho.

I PM you because you seemed smart which it's proving you are. I'm glad you're looking at everything but you're on the wrong trail. I'm not scum.

[Robert Walsh]

1 hour ago, Warren Pratt said:

I have decide to break character here, (though I have REALLY been enjoying it), for the sake of clarity.  Too important a moment.

The highest of my list of suspects are Robert Walsh and Elijah Hendry.  Robert for behaviour yesterday and and fishing earlier in day 2; Elijah for behaviour patterns in both days.

I simply don't know why do you think I was fishing. I was reacting to Paul who brought the chance of blockers or protectors up first. YOU call it fishing.

1 hour ago, Warren Pratt said:

2.  I truly did not want to make a role claim this early, but it is the only way to truly explain our situation.  My role is BODYGUARD, with a twist - on a successful block I die in the target's place.  I asked for a clarification on this as well; neither the initial target nor killer would be given any indication on what had occurred. 

And know you just roleclaim without any reason after you have ONE single vote on you. Why? If you are telling the truth, you are an important asset. Also this is default Bodyguard, where is the twist? And most of all who did you protect last night?

1 hour ago, Warren Pratt said:

Past experience is that scum split their votes for protection so this is a golden chance to take.  So I proposed that we lynch one of Elijah, Zacchary, or myself (Warren)  If the first proves wrong, we move on the next on the list until we get the scum. It also doesn't mean I have exonerated Robert in my eyes btw.  I just am going with the better percentages.

Okay, now this might be a good strategy. As I've pointed out from an outer point of view, You, Elijah and myself could be a scum. Well I am no scum. This is why I asked you to give specifics of the reason you voted for Elijah.

1 hour ago, Warren Pratt said:

So I now admit I lied in my first sentence.  Robert Walsh and Elijah Hendry are actually secondary on my list of suspects at present because I accuse Ethan Dunn of being scum straight out.

Unvote: Elijah Hendry

Vote: Ethan Dunn

You not did just lie in your first sentece, you've lied in your next one too. You just said it is a golden opportunity to take either You, Elijah, Zachary or Liam. And you are going for the better percentages. Which is either one of you from that list.

1 hour ago, Warren Pratt said:

3. What I theorize happened is that Ansel acted night 1 with his role.  Scum were confused as to what occurred when their initial target survived and have spent today trying to uncover what thwarted them.

You say this, but we only know of the swap because of Ethan told us so. This is what indicateted that not Answel was the initial target. You know about this because of the very person who you are just voting to. Who you think is scum straight right. Why would you believe a story of someone who you think is scum and you are voting for?! If I'd think Ethan is scum the most logical thing to say would be that this bus driver story is a huge BS. How do you know the Scum are "thwarted"? This does not add up.

25 minutes ago, Arthur Hargrave said:

I've heard they've done the same with a lot of people.

This sounds like you've heard this from a totally trusted partner. May I ask why would you have such a thing? I've have guessed this means they've done the same to you and they've told you about this, no? I guess it couldn't be somebody else who is already a confirmed buddy in your eyes, no?

5 minutes ago, Ethan Dunn said:

I think there are two claims of role cop and the people I'm talking to in private are too dense to see it. Trying to get to the bottom of it.

Now this is interesting. If this is true, you are most definitely in talk with a scum. Or we should believe that either side has a role cop. Or two role cops in one side. I'm reluctant to believe that.

[Ethan Dunn]

I think the scum team is William, Morgan, Paul and Louis. Maybe also Ken doll.

Now come kill me again bitches. I'm onto you.

Fuck. I meant *Kendall.

People who are concerned about Warren, he PMed me over 24 hours ago to claim his role and give me the same theory. His thinking is 100 consistent. This makes me think he is not scummy.