Bob

Pirates Mafia II - Day Three

Recommended Posts

This little bit from Kendall which both Robert and I pointed out sticks with me.

On 3/26/2020 at 10:32 AM, Kendall Odell said:

*clash* *clash* 

Just to seal the lynch  vote: Paul Lapointe. Paul has done nothing to defend himself here. If he comes out with something amazing I’d reconsider.

*bash* *bash*

 

On 3/26/2020 at 10:49 AM, Robert Walsh said:

You are 9th, 8 is needed.

 

On 3/26/2020 at 10:53 AM, Kendall Odell said:

I didn’t mean seal as such more guarantee the Lynch. So if someone was to unvote/backtrack at the last minute we would still have enough votes to secure the lynch. 

 

On 3/26/2020 at 10:58 AM, Arthur Hargrave said:

Lol from this.

On 3/26/2020 at 4:29 AM, Kendall Odell said:

I don’t like the way the bandwagon has suddenly amassed onto Paul like this. 

To this.

On 3/26/2020 at 10:32 AM, Kendall Odell said:

*clash* *clash* 

Just to seal the lynch  vote: Paul Lapointe. Paul has done nothing to defend himself here. If he comes out with something amazing I’d reconsider.

*bash* *bash*

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another one of those cases where someone says they think someone is scum, but then goes and votes for someone else. Not to mention the person they voted for was the person they "trust the most" and the person they forwent voting for is the person they "trust the least". :wacko:

On 3/26/2020 at 10:11 AM, Zachary Mercier said:

This post makes me think Paul is innocent and you are not.  Plus, it will take 2 more votes to lynch so where are all these missing people? 
Seeing as the person who I trust the least has voted for the person I trust the most, I'll change my vote.  I hope that tomorrow people will look at Warren and Elijah though.

unvote: Warren Pratt

Vote: Paul Lapointe

Morgan points this out.

On 3/26/2020 at 10:24 AM, Morgan Marchand said:

So everything you said sounds like you'd be completely against a Paul vote, and yet you did it. Why? Just to get a lynch? Is that enough reason to vote against the "person I trust the most" - seems odd to me that you didn't explain yourself more. 

Zach replies with um, actually...

On 3/26/2020 at 10:27 AM, Zachary Mercier said:

If you look at what I actually said in the previous page post, i'm not completely against a Paul vote.  I explained myself very much already.

 

On 3/26/2020 at 9:02 AM, Zachary Mercier said:

So there appears to be a lot of chatting going on behind the scenes which is very hard on the town, I'm sure the scum love it though! With 14 players, getting to page 6 on day 2 is pretty low post counts all around. yes, I realize i'm part of the problem with very low number of posts.  I've been trying to pay better attention to things for day 2 and I have to say that the Paul votes make me extremely nervous.  This is very much like yesterday when all the votes piled onto someone at the end of the day with no real evidence.   There are people voting here without even saying why they are voting!  Even if you know why, even if you have agreed in some PM conversation, if you are town you owe it to the rest of us to say why you are voting for someone. it's really not that hard.  

I have gone back and read the things Paul said over the past two days, read some of the things others have said to/about Paul. He does seem scummy overall, I'll give you that. The most damning thing right now is that he claims vanilla townie (usually a very safe claim for a scum) in what appears to be a role madness setup - at least to this point he appears to be the only one claiming vanilla.  Additionally I have not seen him come back to defend himself at all. He wasn't Ethan-level active before, but did sorta drop off the face of the world after the role madness talk started.  This is very suspicious.   However, the thing that gives me pause is the fact that everyone is so willing to move votes to him without much other than that to go on, and it's been quick.

Warren Pratt, now there's someone very worrying to me.  Makes a big longwinded claim of being a bodyguard and then a claim that he didn't use his bodyguard role last night - why not? Lame excuse about confusion. Other than that not much except GIFs and as Robert pointed out, not answering much that's been asked. I'm sorry, but someone who is any sort of town protector will protect someone they see as town, even on the first night. Yes it would have been a risk to yourself, but only a small risk and maybe the risk would pay off and we could find some scum based on the results.  It's a team win, so claiming you could protect and didn't is a lie or very selfish act.  

So of the two, I see a lot more to dislike in Warren.  I went to bed last night hoping Paul would come back and say something but apparently he won't. Half the people haven't even voted and we're in the last hours, where is everyone? 

Vote: Warren Pratt

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Arthur Hargrave said:

This little bit from Kendall which both Robert and I pointed out sticks with me.

*bash* *bash* *bash*

My point about the bandwagon happening so quickly was that it was a lot of people jus saying Vote: Paul. With no real reasoning. It’s not the fact it was for Paul that was the problem. More the fact that it was so sudden. I voted for Paul because he didn’t respond to anything. And I wanted to make sure no one would backtrack on the lynch.

*bash* *bash* *bash*

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2020 at 11:04 AM, Elijah Hendry said:

After a burst of votes for Paul, we're now crawling toward a lynch. This tells me we're on the right track. @Zachary Mercier @Warren Pratt @Benjamin Samuels @William Mitchell @Louis Townsend @Kendall Odell

Who is going to send in that last vote?

I looked again at the end of day 2. This still pings me hard - what about the vote speed made you so sure "we're on the right track"? Between behind-the-scenes planning of a town block (which is what kicked off the Paul voting burst), people being in different time zones, etc, it's hard to base much on that. I've seen it many times before. But if we look at that list of names...

  • Two (william and Louis) never showed on day 2, so I'm ignoring them.
  • Zach had voted for Warren but changed his vote to Paul. In fact, he hammered paul without realizing it. Bob had miscounted the votes, so Zach put vote #8 on paul while thinking it was vote #7. That actually makes me lean town on Zachary. I could see a scum hammering another scum, but not restarting the votes when it was nearing the of the day and scum could have potentially pulled off a no-lynch without being too terribly suspicious. 
  • Ben was here but never voted. What's up with that? I'm going all WIFOM on this, but I don't think that seems scummy. They like to throw votes around to mess up analysis, look helpful, and otherwise mislead us. 
  • Kendall put the un-needed vote #9 on Paul. That's not uncommon, and I'd rather have people vote and take a position than throw it away, so thanks for that. It still felt very flip-floppy though. You'd earlier (as pointed out by Arthur) been against the Paul lynch and then jumped on at the very tail end. *ping*
  • Warren voted Ethan earlier and stayed with it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Kendall Odell said:

*bash* *bash* *bash*

My point about the bandwagon happening so quickly was that it was a lot of people jus saying Vote: Paul. With no real reasoning. It’s not the fact it was for Paul that was the problem. More the fact that it was so sudden. I voted for Paul because he didn’t respond to anything. And I wanted to make sure no one would backtrack on the lynch.

*bash* *bash* *bash*

Paul was silent for over half of day 2 - his last post was on page 3, around 40 hours before the end of the day. (fyi - all you people that keep "@"ing people - that doesn't do much on these anonymous accounts. Unless someone is logged in with their game account, they won't see it, and they don't get email or other notifications either) You didn't feel it worthy of being voted for though until the lynch was already done. 

The backtrack thing is what super hard pings me. Would you really be concerned about someone scummily saving their scum partner by unvoting at the last minute? When you placed that vote there was about 20 minutes left in the day. Saving someone at the very last minute would be so epically scummy I can't see it happening. I think you were just trying to put additional justification for your vote flipping to get on the "we lynched a scummo!" bandwagon. For these reasons, I'll kick off day 3 with a 

Vote: Kendall Odell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Morgan Marchand said:

 The backtrack thing is what super hard pings me. Would you really be concerned about someone scummily saving their scum partner by unvoting at the last minute? When you placed that vote there was about 20 minutes left in the day. Saving someone at the very last minute would be so epically scummy I can't see it happening. I think you were just trying to put additional justification for your vote flipping to get on the "we lynched a scummo!" bandwagon. For these reasons, I'll kick off day 3 with a 

Vote: Kendall Odell

*bang* *bang* *clash* *clash*

I can see how it looks scummy. I think it’s better to place a vote than to sit on the fence and not hold a position at all. Which is why I went for Paul. I also voted for Paul on Day One. Would scum vote for each other on Day 1? If I was scum why would I actively call out a team mate so early? Why would I call out a teammate for being too quiet and risk drawing attention to him? I agree with your position on Zachary. 

I’m going to Vote: Arthur Hargrove. Looking back at yesterday. He makes short, sometimes fluffy, posts which don’t actually say anything at all. But make it look like he’s adding to the discussion. I don’t know who’s been involved behind the scenes. But from what Uve seen in the day thread Arthur hasn’t contributed much. 

 

*bash* *bash* *bash*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kendall Odell said:

*bang* *bang* *bang*

Whoo! We caught one! Sad to see my trumpet buddy Robert go.

Possibly. Bodyguard is a hard role to prove. Since as you said the only way we know if he’s telling the truth is if he turns up dead. Warren was asked a lot of questions regarding his claim but didn’t answer any of them. 

*bang* *bang* *bang*

There are other ways to prove no? Watch the person he says he will target. Track him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kendall Odell said:

[noise deleted, it's early and I'm still a little hung over]

I can see how it looks scummy. I think it’s better to place a vote than to sit on the fence and not hold a position at all. Which is why I went for Paul. I also voted for Paul on Day One. Would scum vote for each other on Day 1? If I was scum why would I actively call out a team mate so early? Why would I call out a teammate for being too quiet and risk drawing attention to him? I agree with your position on Zachary. 

[more noise deleted]

Um, yes? Scum very much vote for each other on day 1. For a prime example, check out the last game (star trek) where mostlytechnic voted against his scum partner and ended up getting them lynched. THAT is unusual - it's very common though for scum to vote against each other in all the chaos to screw with the vote analysis later. And they need to have at least a tiny basis for the vote, so yeah, what you did is EXACTLY what scum partners would do. 

12 minutes ago, Ethan Dunn said:

There are other ways to prove no? Watch the person he says he will target. Track him?

That can prove the claimed bodyguard has a role, but not WHAT that role is. Short of a failed kill attempt (or a rolecop, if we have one), there's no way to verify the claim. OR a successful kill attempt on someone he's guarding would prove he's lying... which is the risk liars take :snicker:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Morgan Marchand said:

 check out the last game (star trek) where mostlytechnic voted against his scum partner and ended up getting them lynched. 

I remember it differently. I saw mostlytechnic vote for his scum buddy but that scum buddy avoided detection for the rest of the game in an epic scum win.

Morgan, Kendall, Arthur I all lean town on. 

Vote: William Mitchell

again because he is so scummy he's indivisible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ethan Dunn said:

I remember it differently. I saw mostlytechnic vote for his scum buddy but that scum buddy avoided detection for the rest of the game in an epic scum win.

Morgan, Kendall, Arthur I all lean town on. 

You're correct - I mis-remembered it. Either way, it still proves my point of a scum voting for another on day 1. Usually it doesn't go anywhere, just like most day 1 votes don't go anywhere. That's WHY they do it! Hide in the crowd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Morgan Marchand said:

You're correct - I mis-remembered it. Either way, it still proves my point of a scum voting for another on day 1. Usually it doesn't go anywhere, just like most day 1 votes don't go anywhere. That's WHY they do it! Hide in the crowd. 

*bash* *bash* *bash* *clang* 

It was the third vote of the day. I wouldn’t call that hiding since others just waited for a bandwagon to start and pile on. 

38 minutes ago, Morgan Marchand said:

That can prove the claimed bodyguard has a role, but not WHAT that role is. Short of a failed kill attempt (or a rolecop, if we have one), there's no way to verify the claim. OR a successful kill attempt on someone he's guarding would prove he's lying... which is the risk liars take :snicker:

Indeed, and a bodyguard can be any alignment so a cop investigation would be the decider. 

*clang* *clang* *clang*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kendall Odell said:

*bash* *bash* *bash* *clang* 

It was the third vote of the day. I wouldn’t call that hiding since others just waited for a bandwagon to start and pile on. 

Indeed, and a bodyguard can be any alignment so a cop investigation would be the decider. 

*clang* *clang* *clang*

The 3rd vote out of some 25ish that were made. And you voted for 3 different people in the course of the day. That's how first days go - lots of votes, lots of random things thrown around, and then finally a bandwagon forms on someone and they get lynched. That's exactly how the scum treat it too - throw out a variety of votes (on other scum AND on town, acting like they don't know who is who) and then hide in all the chaos. 

If we got a rolecop result of bodyguard on someone, then I'd assume they're town and might not waste another investigation on them. Yes, bodyguard can be either. But a scum bodyguard doesn't make much sense - a night kill that they could protect against would have to come from a vigilante or serial killer. In either case, the bodyguard turns up dead and scum, so the shooter (vig or SK) knows whoever they REALLY targeted is ALSO scum and tries again the next night, or reveals it and the scum gets lynched. Even mafiawiki says so: "Bodyguard is usually Town. It makes little sense for there to be a Mafia Bodyguard, as they have no reason to target anyone except a scumpartner; and a Vigilante who finds that their kill resolved on a different scum than they expected can simply shoot their previous target again." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Morgan Marchand said:

The 3rd vote out of some 25ish that were made. And you voted for 3 different people in the course of the day. That's how first days go - lots of votes, lots of random things thrown around, and then finally a bandwagon forms on someone and they get lynched. That's exactly how the scum treat it too - throw out a variety of votes (on other scum AND on town, acting like they don't know who is who) and then hide in all the chaos. 

I’ll concur. It’s not a great defence. Day One is always random, baseless votes. Regardless I can assure you you’re barking up the wrong tree with me. I’m town and everything I’ve done so far has been in the interests of it.

34 minutes ago, Morgan Marchand said:

But a scum bodyguard doesn't make much sense - a night kill that they could protect against would have to come from a vigilante or serial killer. 

True. But I’ve learned never to assume anything. However improbable. But I agree with you here. I’m leaning slightly more Town with Warren despite his role claim post not making sense in many areas. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Arthur Hargrave said:

Here's another one of those cases where someone says they think someone is scum, but then goes and votes for someone else. Not to mention the person they voted for was the person they "trust the most" and the person they forwent voting for is the person they "trust the least". :wacko:

Number one: this is completely untrue.

Number two: someone said the exact same thing yesterday and then realized they were wrong.

If you are going to accuse someone of something, at least have you facts straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Zachary Mercier said:

Number one: this is completely untrue.

Number two: someone said the exact same thing yesterday and then realized they were wrong.

If you are going to accuse someone of something, at least have you facts straight.

Hehehe, yeah, that was me misunderstanding him yesterday. Like I said, lots of people and too many pronouns means it's easy to misunderstand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zachary Mercier said:

I don't trust Warren or have any reason to. I still feel the same way I did yesterday about him.

Honestly I have gotten a lot wrong so far, so I don't blame you.  I was wrong on Robert, and had no read on Paul.  Honestly feels like I am doing more damage than good.

(I was right not to jump on Reginald mind you... broken clock and all that) 

9 hours ago, Kendall Odell said:

Possibly. Bodyguard is a hard role to prove. Since as you said the only way we know if he’s telling the truth is if he turns up dead. Warren was asked a lot of questions regarding his claim but didn’t answer any of them.

You don't know the half of it.  I was told I successfully guarded a person last night.  I am however not dead (obviously) so putting down my confusion to semantics.  For the record I did NOT guard Robert (cuz I thought him scummy), but I will let the guarded person know privately now; not telling the other persons who are poking me privately so don't bother.

Add-on:  I have also now received private unsubstantiated claims of blocker and governor.  Fit those into your calculations.

Add-on 2: I completely forgot to stay in character.  Gawddamn it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Warren Pratt said:

 

Add-on:  I have also now received private unsubstantiated claims of blocker and governor.  Fit those into your calculations.

Careful. We have two jailkeeper claims. One of these has to be scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Warren Pratt said:

You don't know the half of it.  I was told I successfully guarded a person last night.  I am however not dead (obviously) so putting down my confusion to semantics.  For the record I did NOT guard Robert (cuz I thought him scummy), but I will let the guarded person know privately now; not telling the other persons who are poking me privately so don't bother.

Your "successful" result just means that you weren't blocked from guarding. It doesn't mean that you prevented a kill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Morgan Marchand said:

I looked again at the end of day 2. This still pings me hard - what about the vote speed made you so sure "we're on the right track"?

Sowwy... all I was doing was trying to get the lynch to happen. In terms of speed — a few people had agreed Paul's claim was fishy although he hadn't demonstrated much out-and-out scummy behavior. In terms of the votes' buildup, the real question was who was going to vote in the end. Admittedly it was a weak case, but the implications were that I didn't expect scum to push the wagon at the beginning, and I didn't expect scum to seal the deal at the end to bus one of their own. But they may have tagged along in the middle. Here's the final tally from yesterday:

On 3/26/2020 at 11:57 AM, Bob said:

Vote Count: 
Ethan Dunn - 1 (Warren Pratt)
Paul LaPointe - 9 (Liam Webb, Arthur Hargrave, Ethan Dunn, Elijah Hendry, Robert Walsh, Mitchell LaHore, Morgan Marchand, Zachary Mercier, Kendall Odell)

With 9 votes, Paul LaPointe has been sent to the firing line. A day conclusion will be up in a bit. 

Zachary hammered and Kendall made sure the lynch went through. Arthur's given him grief over that today, but the rationale is clear: were there a scum on the lynch yesterday, it would have been possible for him to "get cold feet" and pull out, preventing us from sending Paul to the firing squad. So that's Mitchell and Morgan in my book for additional scrutiny.

Where else could have scum hidden? They could have hidden by not voting at all yesterday. Those people are @Benjamin Samuels, @William Mitchell and @Louis Townsend, discounting Paul whose goose we cooked.

13 minutes ago, Morgan Marchand said:

Your "successful" result just means that you weren't blocked from guarding. It doesn't mean that you prevented a kill. 

Quite right.

Anyway, enough with the speculation — on to hard facts. Louis Townsend was investigated last night and was found to be a scummy scum bum.

Vote: Louis Townsend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Elijah Hendry said:

Anyway, enough with the speculation — on to hard facts. Louis Townsend was investigated last night and was found to be a scummy scum bum.

Vote: Louis Townsend

Oh nice. The guy who hammered Reginald. 

Unvote: William Mitchell

Vote: Louis Townsend

I would prefer to see William Mitchell investigated but still happy to have sacked one. William's behavior is very close to Louis's. Made questionable posts on day 1 didn't show up or vote yesteday. Weird tactic to take fly under the radar to such an extreme but cool. Sage to assume this invesitgyator is ligit because it would be pretty easy to see this as a lie tomorrow after we lynch Louis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that makes it simple. I'm glad to know we still have an investigator! I was afraid they were killed already with the lack of any info out about investigations.

Vote: Louis Townsend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.