Werewolf Mafia: Day 2

[Alopex]

Three people with protective powers does sound a bit to much... One will probably be lying...

1. The persons a werewolf (or anything else)

2. The person doesn't trust you and won't reveal his real role

3. There are really 3 protective roles...

[Ricecracker]

I think someone's playing you if you truly believe there are 3 people with protective powers. Never in my years as a detective have I seen this before.

[def]

I think it's pretty unlikely there are three protective roles. Even two sounds a unbalanced. I would think that someone who offered the information, rather than someone who was confronted and then used it as an explanation. Methinks something is afoot.

[Eskallon]

Im not sure about there being 3 protective roles either, I would say a maximum of two. My guess would be at least one is a paranoid protector and blocks instead of protects, that would even it out a little more.

[def]

I would think that someone who offered the information, rather than someone who was confronted and then used it as an explanation.

That made no sense. I blame the wine.

I meant:

I would think that someone who offered the information is more reliable than someone who was confronted and then used it as an explanation.

But it also depends on the skill and ingenuity of the person lying.

[Peanuts]

The rules of life don't say we can't, this is all thay say on the issue:

Yes, but the rule is only talking about the host's PMs. I was talking about PMs from other players...of life.

[Eskallon]

Yes, but the rule is only talking about the host's PMs. I was talking about PMs from other players...of life.

Yeah, and I said that the rules of life don't say we cannot.

Go ahead, I say.

[Alopex]

Its a bit silly to have an argument about this...

[Peanuts]

Its a bit silly to have an argument about this...

Right. I'll stop arguing about that and will wait until we learn who tried to kill the Chief, who doesn't even know how to wear a hat.

Has anyone any suspect we might discuss in the meantime?

[WhiteFang]

I think Harriet is merely saying she knows who makes the bullets and that they need to be brought to the village gun owner. I.e, she asks the gun owner to speak to her about it.

It does make some sense. I was assuming that the person who makes silver bullets could hand to someone that he or she could trust and fire at will, like our possible town vigilante but seems to me like a 2-step approach which can be a hassle at night.

If that is the case, the person who wields the pick axe, is likely to be a werewolf vigilante. Poor Dacius .

Three people with protective powers does sound a bit to much... One will probably be lying...

1. The persons a werewolf (or anything else)

2. The person doesn't trust you and won't reveal his real role

3. There are really 3 protective roles...

Err... 3 person with protective powers in the event of protecting others seems to me, abit overkill.. I don't think there are so many people walking around at night to protect others. I could safely assume it will be one on each side.

[Rick]

Three people with protective powers does sound a bit to much... One will probably be lying...

1. The persons a werewolf (or anything else)

2. The person doesn't trust you and won't reveal his real role

3. There are really 3 protective roles...

Well, regarding 2, protector isn't really a claim you make to cover up another night action. It's one of the most powerful roles. That leaves 1 and 3. I do agree it's a bit much, but it's not impossible. I think it's option 1 though. It's the only reasonable claim left to make when confronted with the evidence Harriet has gathered.

[Hinckley]

Let me perform a play to describe my day so far.

The Mysterious Case of too many Night Action Claims

Night 1

Person 1: Hello I'm the protector.

Harriet: How fortunate for us. Hey we've got this guy who claimed his night action to a werewolf. Can you protect him?

Person 1: As a protector, that's what I do.

Harriet: Great.

Person 2: Hey, I have a protective ability but can only use it twice. Should I protect Officer Nathans tonight?

Harriet: Yes, he is likely to be attacked so let's protect him. If we block them from killing on Night One, we'll be two up on those bastard werewolves!

Day 2

Person 2: I was blocked.

Harriet: Oh no! My best friend, Dacius Nathans is dead! At least I won't have to type Dacius anymore. What a stupid name.

Person 3: I followed Ebenezer Hewitt last night and he was targetted by Person 1 and Person 4.

Harriet: Targeted only has one t.

Person 3: Really?

Harriet: Yes, that's why your spell check keeps underlining it in red.

Person 3: Yes, that has been happening all day and because of this conversation I have to keep typing it. You think I'd have learned by now. Anyway, Ebenezer Hewitt was targeted by Person 1 and Person 4.

Harriet: Really?

Person 3: Do I really need to repeat myself??

Person 1: Hey.

Harriet: Oh hey. I suppose we should've had you protect Dacius.

Person 1: Well, my protective abilities are a little different from just the normal guarding.

Harriet: Really? In what way?

Person 1: I rather wouldn't say it in your play so as not to inform the Werewolves of how my night action works. So I'll whisper it to you.

Harriet: OK, do that.

(Person 1 whispers in Harriet's ear)

Harriet: How intriguing...and scary.

Critic: This play isn't as funny as your previous ones!

Harriet: Shut up! I'm branching out, outside of comedies. Jerk

(Later that day)

Harriet: Person 4, why did you target Ebenezer Hewitt last night?

Person 4: Duh, I was protecting him. He announced his night action to the whole mansion. So I protected him, that's what I do as the protector. Duh. Why would you even ask that? Duh.

Harriet: Can you clarify any of that for me? In what way do you protect?

Person 4: I have to use the bathroom.

Harriet: OK, I'll wait.

(Harriet waits...)

(...and waits...)

(...and waits...)

Person 5: Hey Harriet, I have protective abilities, but can't use them every night.

Harriet: What the megabluck? Four people with protective abilities? This can't be right.

(Curtain)

Sorry it was so boring.

[Fugazi]

Very informative play! But was this intentional?

Person 3: I followed Ebenezer Hewitt last night and he was targetted by Person 2 and Person 4.

Or did you mean Person 1?

[Ricecracker]

At least one of those has to be a werewolf, no..?

[WhiteFang]

That was an interesting play and one of them is cooking up a story for sure..

I suppose this was another of your private shows last night?

[Admiral Ron]

Well Harriet, it appears obvious that Person 4 is lying, or doesnt want to tell you their real role. But, as strange as it may seem, we may have a lot of protection.

[Lord Arjay]

Person 2: I was blocked.

Person 3: I followed Ebenezer Hewitt last night and he was targetted by Person 2 and Person 4.

Person Two claims to be blocked but they were seen by Person Three targeting Ebenezer. Person Two also claims to be protecting Nathans, not Ebenezer. Clearly, Person Two is the liar.

Or did Person Three mean to say Person One and not Person Two?

In any case, I simply don't believe there are four people with protective powers. If Person 4 was the one who claimed in defense then he is the most suspicious to me.

[Eskallon]

Harriet: What the megabluck? Four people with protective abilities? This can't be right.

Sorry it was so boring.

FOUR

Well one of them must be werewolves, because a villager would have to be the biggest retard ever to pretend he is a protector to someone who could potentially be a werewolf because if so person was a werewolf they would be dead the next morning. so which one is the werewolf.

Or like I said some of them are just even more stupid villagers than I am.

Or did Person Three mean to say Person One and not Person Two?

In any case, I simply don't believe there are four people with protective powers. If Person 4 was the one who claimed in defense then he is the most suspicious to me.

I am fairly sure our mis-guided Harriet here meant Person 1 and 4.

Oh and I too believe person 4 is the liar coming up with an excuse not to have killed me, or somethign like that.

[sok117]

What our officer said we said in private I can confirm is true but let me add something he forgot to tell you.

"Hello chief, I'd like to start feeling through some of the patrons of the mansion, and I thought it best to start with the members of the force who I have worked with before, have you been in touch with Draggy at all?"

That was how he contacted me in the beggining and he mentions nothing about how he wants to gain trust, or aims to talk about something important but he says "Have you been in touch with Draggy", is it just me or does this seem suspicous to you. I also replied in the next post asking "What does that have to do with me"

This was because I was starting to build an alliance with people in the police force, my trusted allies, I'll also have you know that If you look at "timestamps" this was before I had any suspicion of Dacious at all. I think the whole fact of me contacting you kinda implies trust, It's not like I said, "hey don't trust me, but tell me what I want to know" And If my memory serves me correctly you replied

"Hey Adam,

First off, I have not yet spoken to Draggy privatly but I know of someone who has, does this have anything to do with anything?

Ebenezer"

to which I replied

"not really, I thought that if there was a chance of starting an alliance, I would begin with the members of the police force which I am a part of, I have tried to contact Draggy but no go so far. I'm waiting for suspicions to come in, what do you think of Zed in the game thread? Innocent or guilty? right now I'm unsure, but it would be interesting to see what truns up if he is convicted."

Looking back there was bad grammer with me answering "not really" but the Chief can confirm this was my reply. Note that this was before Zed had contacted me and I was still unsure what to think of him.

The difference between me and you Adam was that once the evidence was slapped in my face I turned it around and apologised whereas you then went on to lecture us with a very long speech about Dacius. So adding that to the fact of Pm's shows how I reacted to the evidence compared to you.

I'm sorry, but I was following my instincts and I didn't think this conviction was so black and white, turns out I was wrong and it was black and white, so sue me.

You know, I just had a thought... Dacius was not killed because he was active yesterday... He was killed because his death would bring suspicion to those who mistrusted him, in particular Adam Sokern. That's what I would have done had I been one of the scum. I'm thinking that Mr Sokern is being framed by one of a third party, a logical move. Which does not mean that he's innocent -- only not part of the same group. He still could be a werewolf or something else.

I already had this thought before If you look back at my lengthy speeches of defence, it seems possible. So that may be something to take into consideration.

The death of Dacius was not by the hand of a werewolf. Werewolves kill their victim and eat them. So I think it’s pretty safe to say this wasn’t a werewolf kill. Thus either the third party has a killer too, or there’s a villager who can kill at night. The last option seems rather unlikely, because the villager in question must be very stupid to vote out Dacius when he lead (together with Harriet) to the conviction of a werewolf. My guess is thus that Dacius was killed by an impartial.

I agree with you on this, or instead of an impartial it could be a third group all together. But seeing as how there is no info suggesting a third faction, I woul deal with this as I would with an impartial.

On to Sokern. Sokern claimed he tried to make Dacius slip up, because Sokern claims to believe Dacius was a werewolf. HOWEVER someone really did slip up and he refused to see it. With other words we were quite sure we had found a werewolf, Sokern didn’t help in any way and kept defending the werewolf. He ended up not voting that day. It wouldn’t have made any sense because if he did vote for Zed, nobody would have believed him since he had been defending him the whole day. On the other hand there was the Chief who voted for Dacius during the day. Care to explain why you voted for him Chief, and why you took back your vote later on the day?

Well the first slip yp was something that I felt wasn't a good enough reason to vote, as many others agreed, I thought it was an easy mistake for one to make so already I'm having doubts, then there was some evidence of timestamps which could have easily been made up seeing as there was no way to directly quote them, all there was was that play by Harriet, which In my book didn't seem like evidence, but entertainment. And yes I did not vote that day because of how I felt, if you go back and reread the private conversation I had with the Chief I said this

"I am all for it, but it seems the bandwagon has started against Zed, and with that I suggest we hold off on voting for now and if Zed turns out to be innocent tomorrow thats more evidence we have against him, which will increase our chances of rallying to vote him out, So hold off, and by the slim chance that Zed is werewolf, you will not be suspected for voting for someone else. I have talked to Dragonator and told him that he was most likely a werewolf and that I would be starting the bandwagon tomorrow against him if Zed is innocent, so with that, If I die I need you to start the bandwagon tomorrow okay."

because I still believed Dacious to be a werewolf You can see how I tried to protect the chief and told him to vote for someone else rather then Dacious because I was starting to second guess myself, this was after Zed came to me with his story. This coupled with the fact that when the chief talked to me and said

"I was at first definatly going to vote him off but now I am not so sure, he just mis~read his role and even I didn't see anything about factions till Harriet pointed it out and I took another look. I am not going to vote for him when the time comes.

However at times like this I do feel it is good to have friends and build alliances, It gives us a chance to disscuss things and put information together to solve a problem. Therefore I too would like an alliance with you, the only thing is though that I would not feel comfortable revealing my role to you yet.

I cannot talk more now because of exahaustion but tommorrow we can discuss the issue further.

Yours

Ebenezer "

note here he is talking about not voting for Zed, which I felt to, but he also clearly stated to me that he had a night role, to which I replied

"Yeah me too I feel the same way, I could have just as easily asked that question and now have my nose to the grindstone

And as a piece of advice, when someone contacts you, don't tell them that you have a role/ night action, cause you just told me and If I was scum you would be knee deep in trouble . So just watch out next time, don't reveal your role, and don't tell anyone you have a role. It's the safest way to stay alive, I'll talk to you later today."

I told him that he shouldn't contact someone and even whisper the fact that he had a night role, I tried to help him as best I could but he didn't take my advice yesterday and he still told the whole world he had a night action! I tried my best to protect him because by the chance that Zed was a werewolf, he wouldn't be brought under the spotlight.

The blocker apparently was smart enough to block Sokern. And look what happened, no werewolf killings tonight. What a coincidence!? It might be, cause it is possible the werewolves converted someone last night.

This I'm gonna have to answer in bold so that everyone reads it

There was no werewolf killing last night, I believe that a conversion took place because a werewolf being voted out on the first day would have dropped the werewolves numbers greatly, as of now there might be only 2 or so werewolves here and they need to rebuild there numbers, this is most likely why we haven't seen a werewolf kill last night.

You didn't say it was weak arguments and a strong night action that convinced you Zed wasn't scum. Actually, from the beginning of the day since few hours ago you said t was a reasonable speech, that made you sure Zed wasn't scum. Now you say it wasn't valid at all, you were just stupid.

I myself think, you told us he convinced you with valid arguments, then you had to tell us your arguments, and had to make stuff up. You didn't have valid arguments that were stronger than Harriets accuse, so you took weak arguments and said you trusted him blindly.

Also, the question was talked several times before you answered, maybe you realized, that not answering would make you even more suspicious. I don't turst you at all.

And, i'm just wondering, are we allowed to quote from PotatoMegablocks? THe rule is only talking about the ones send by the host.

I said reasonable speech because I was unsure whether or not I could speak of private conversations. But in essence that reasonable speech was a strong night action and a sob story about his "real life" And yes, I am saying that I should've seen how many holes were in it, I'm stupid, are you happy now? I AM STUPID, alas you do prove a point that casts the seed of doubt into my actions, which inevitably make them useless in defending me. The reason I did not answer before Is because I was talking with Harriet about the pick ax killer and my suspicions, coupled with Harriet beating down on me with her accusations, sorry If I missed the question asked before, but I have answered it now, but my lateness has again tainted it with doubt.

Well, regarding 2, protector isn't really a claim you make to cover up another night action. It's one of the most powerful roles. That leaves 1 and 3. I do agree it's a bit much, but it's not impossible. I think it's option 1 though. It's the only reasonable claim left to make when confronted with the evidence Harriet has gathered.

Yeah I have to agree that option 1 is the only reasonable option, Zed told me he was a protecter and that is a powerful role, but also when you announce yourself as a protector, you can't protect yourself in the night, so thats why Harriet can't announce all the people claiming to be protectors because the werewolves will be able to see which of the three is not them, and therefore easily be able to kill them, that is why it's up to harriets keen detective work to single out the one that is lying, and if that doesn't work out, you always have me to fall back on

[Ricecracker]

I agree with you on this, or instead of an impartial it could be a third group all together. But seeing as how there is no info suggesting a third faction, I woul deal with this as I would with an impartial.

Are you trying to get voted off? Is that not the reason we went after Zed yesterday?

[Hinckley]

Very informative play! But was this intentional?

Or did you mean Person 1?

Yes, and I'm going to edit it. Shoot me. I don't want to confuse anybody else.

[sok117]

Are you trying to get voted off? Is that not the reason we went after Zed yesterday?

I'm not sure I follow you, I only said that since there is no proof of a third faction besides "You win when all factions besides the Village have been eradicated" you see the word from god doesn't state that there is more then the werewolf faction we are up against, but it also doesn't state that we are only up against the werewolves so since there is no other proof of a third faction, I think it would be an impartial, sorry If I confused you.

[Eskallon]

Today we have a choice of who to convict, Adam or this Person 4 who is lying about what they did last night and therefore I am pursuaded to believe he targetted me with malicious intent.

Harriet, I really do think you need to reveal the name of the second person who targetted me last night, it is obvious they are lying now about what they did and I very much doubt they were protecting me , if we know who they are they we can look back and see if they have done anything else suspicous yesterday and today.

[Hinckley]

Or did Person Three mean to say Person One and not Person Two?

In any case, I simply don't believe there are four people with protective powers. If Person 4 was the one who claimed in defense then he is the most suspicious to me.

Yes, yes. I'm sorry I edited it. I understand if I get a penalty vote, but I didn't want to confuse any other players. Sorry.

There was no werewolf killing last night, I believe that a conversion took place because a werewolf being voted out on the first day would have dropped the werewolves numbers greatly, as of now there might be only 2 or so werewolves here and they need to rebuild there numbers, this is most likely why we haven't seen a werewolf kill last night.

2 or so? What makes you think that? Honestly, we know werewolves only transform in the moonlight. I assume we're all inside to avoid the moonlight. Dacius was nowhere near a window when he died. Maybe werewolves are killing with a pickaxe because there is no moonlight handy. I admit that having a game...of life about werewolves and not showing any werewolves eating people would be rather lame, but the conclusion of the day yesterday was pretty clear that Zed didn't transform until he was cornered by the enormous cracks in the wall. Anyway, you seem to know something about the werewolves' numbers now. You're not too bright.

[Rick]

This I'm gonna have to answer in bold so that everyone reads it

There was no werewolf killing last night, I believe that a conversion took place because a werewolf being voted out on the first day would have dropped the werewolves numbers greatly, as of now there might be only 2 or so werewolves here and they need to rebuild there numbers, this is most likely why we haven't seen a werewolf kill last night.

Are you defending Person 4 - the person who can possibly be the werewolf killer but claims to be a protector - in Harriet's play now?

But seriously, is there anything that suggests they opted not to kill and to convert instead. Another observation: the number of members of an enemy faction are typically bigger to begin with. What do you base your guess of "two or so" werewolves on? Especially since you seem to doubt there is a third faction.

Oh, and try to keep it short and non-repetitive this time.