Morgan Marchand

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Posts posted by Morgan Marchand

  1. 5 hours ago, Ethan Dunn said:

    OK, then.

    After Louis, I think it's safe to say one of these blockers and/or the ever-asbent William Mitchell are our final scum.

    Then those in the know of the details of who's claiming what and exactly what abilities they claim to have, start figuring out how to test the claims. Assign targets and see if all the results are as expected or if anyone is lying. Worst case - we can lynch to test their claims. If we really have a whole heap of blockers, we can afford to lose one or two. I'd rather not lose loyal soldiers and their abilities, but it'd be worse to have a pirate traitor infiltrate the leadership. Limit what everyone knows so that if any of the claims are lying scum, it limits what the scum learn.

    3 minutes ago, Benjamin Samuels said:

    I missed this earlier today.  I had voted once this whole game when you posted this gem (aka blatant lie), so I fail to see how I could have achieved any of the outcomes you claim I have.  

    I've already explained why I didn't vote yesterday.

    Defensive much? I was actually saying I was leaning town on you because I didn't think a scum would draw attention to themselves by not voting at all. And I did that analysis before I knew about why you weren't around part of the day. 

  2. 3 hours ago, Ethan Dunn said:

    People who copy and paste their posts are weird- maye that's just paranoia. The pre-plan team was me, robert, Liam-who I'm still unsure on. I know he loves Flag. That's all I'm 100% on. However, he was blocked last night by two people. One jailkeeper and not this guy down here vv

    For the record, the only thing I copy and pasted was the list of voters. The formatting stuck for the rest of my post. The () around the list are from taking it from a bob post. 

    Heck, if you wanna make something out of nothing.... I'm the first post on pages 3 and 4. Must mean something, right? :sarcasm:

  3. 40 minutes ago, Elijah Hendry said:

    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.

    First, thanks for the result. Always good to lynch a pirate traitor!

    Second, to help with future hunting, let's re-assess your thoughts on the day 2 vote. Here's the order again:

    (Liam Webb, Arthur Hargrave, Ethan Dunn, Elijah Hendry, Robert Walsh, Mitchell LaHore, Morgan Marchand, Zachary Mercier, Kendall Odell)

    Out of that, I don't know how many were the original town group that discussed ahead of time. I think though that kendall is scummy (as I've already explained). Zachary is town, since he hammered without even knowing he was (or he's a good liar...) Where I disagree with you is that Mitchell and I are scum due to our position. I don't think scum would have been position 6 and 7 in a vote when 8 are needed. I've seen people survive having 5 votes on them before (or the equivalent). It just takes a couple of those people changing. If we didn't have his death to prove otherwise, I'd be all over Robert as scummy, since based on sharing investigation results, I assume you (Elijah) are town. I think Ethan is too, and I'm assuming that Liam and Arthur were also in the pre-planning and therefore town. So that leaves maybe Mitchell as scum and everyone else but Kendall as town. Could we really have had an almost all-town lynch vote and the people who didn't get on the wagon be scummos? That means I'm currently most suspicious of Ben, Warren, and William (in addition to Kendall as already said repeatedly) 

  4. 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. 

  5. 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. 

  6. 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." 

  7. 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. 

  8. 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:

  9. 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

  10. 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. 



  11. Just now, Benjamin Samuels said:

    I don't think scurvy cares what side you are one. 

    And one of the two replaced in the last place was scum.

    *last game (not last place)

    Correct - that's what I was saying. Normally low post count can indicate scum (trying to not be noticed) but NO posts indicates town (since that DOES draw attention). But if people are being replaced (due to scurvy, or whatever real-life reason), then I'm hesitant to read much into William/Louis' lack of posts yesterday. 

  12. 24 minutes ago, 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.

    Ok, I went back and it makes more sense. Just too many people to keep track of everyone's previously-stated opinions :)

    So then I assume you are calling Warren the person you trust the least and therefore Ethan the person you trust the most? Too many pronouns make it difficult to keep track... 

  13. 5 minutes ago, 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

    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. 

  14. 6 minutes ago, Ethan Dunn said:

    I am feeling this way about it too but is every lynch a bandwagon? I don't see a difference between what people call bandwagons and what would be a regular lynch. I think one fishy person was pushy about this lynch behind the scenes. We will have more than the voting pattern to look at tomorrow if we are able to lynch Paul.

    Today, like day 1, feels bandwagony. There's lots of votes with little reason other than "to get a lynch" - and that's the key. When there's an investigation result shared, or some other actual reason to vote for someone, it's not a bandwagon, that's just obvious voting. It's when there's a rush of votes with little reason on them. 

    Just now, 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?

    On the right track? Based on what? There's very little reason to ACTUALLY think Paul is scum any more than there was ACTUAL reason to lynch Reggie yesterday. I highly suspect we'll have another town result, but then we can look through the voting. That's how this game works. 

    Just now, Bob said:

    Vote Count: 
    Ethan Dunn - 1 (Warren Pratt)
    Paul LaPointe - 6 (Liam Webb, Arthur Hargrave, Ethan Dunn, Elijah Hendry, Robert Walsh, Mitchell LaHore, Morgan Marchand
    Warren Pratt - 1 (Zachary Mercier)

    About 49 minutes remain in this day. 

    Oh bob sir, that's 7 votes on Paul.

  15. Part of me wants to vote Paul to help ensure we get a lynch today. I still may.

    I also want to vote for Louis. Hasn't posted a single time today, and near the end of yesterday he was very suspicious to me. He put the hammer vote in, which normally scum don't like to do (since they know they're sealing the lynch of a townie and that'll show up the next day), but he made the point of calling it out. 

    I do hate to vote for people who simply aren't around (especially since bob's said he's looking for a replacement, which I assume is either Louis or William, or both), so ...


    Vote: Paul Lapointe

    Yes, it's bandwagony and risks killing a townie. But it at minimum gives us more voting records to examine, and at worst we're lynching a vanilla townie as he claimed. And as Zach just pointed out, right now, a vanilla claim is suspicious. We don't know we're in a role madness situation, but based on the claims we're hearing, it sure looks that way. 

    And ok, yes, I know I'm almost doing what I said I'm suspicious of Louis for. I'm almost hammering, and I'm calling it out. So sue me. I know I'm loyal; I don't know that he is. 

  16. 14 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? 

    Catching up - yes, standard mafia rules are that all the scum know the whole scum team. That means they also know who is not scum. Technically, they wouldn't know who is town vs any 3rd party roles, but that's usually irrelevant to them. 

    10 hours ago, Ethan Dunn said:

    The blocker did turn out to be a jailkeeper. 

    How would you know that? They "lock someone up" so that they protect AND block them for the night. So there should be no way for the person being targeted to know it was a jailkeeper, nor would any one who's action failed. Unless the scum tried to both block and kill the same person (dumb) and both failed. 

  17. 17 hours ago, Zachary Mercier said:

    So what we do know is looking at the voting patterns and talking from day 1 which Ethan laid out so clearly for us all , and I'm sorry but I still see Morgan as probably scum. Made a bit of a flub and got overeager on early posting, got pretty quiet when his team mate(s) told him to shut up maybe? Voted not to secure a lynch on a bandwagon but to keep it moving forward.  

    Ah, I see I'm being brought up again. Let me just say, well, due to the current, um, scurvy going around, my time for this pirate hunt is less than I'd like it to be. So yes, my discussion may not be voluminous. (in plain English - with the current news in the world, and statewide lockdowns, my employer is an "essential" business, so I'm not getting to sit at home or even work from home like many people are, instead, I'm basically working a manufacturing job all day to help increase our production instead of my usual office work, so I won't be able to monitor the game all day long like I usually would. And no, I'm not making face masks or sanitizer or obvious vital stuff. But we do manufacture products that are needed behind the scenes - don't wanna give more detail since it might violate the anonymous game) 

    9 hours ago, Ethan Dunn said:

    It's quite common to have multiple TOWN blockers even in normal games?

    Sure, it can be, especially with a game this large. Keep in mind there are different roles that cause actions to fail - plain blockers, jailkeepers, doctors, etc. Two blockers for the town would be somewhat unusual, but not two different roles that can cause blocking. 

    8 hours ago, Robert Walsh said:

    Yeah, I bet you were the visual type :pir-sweet:

    Not quite right. Scum has only some advantage to find innocents, but without roleclaims they can be wrong too.

    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. 

  18. 42 minutes ago, Robert Walsh said:

    For their defense, this was the very reason you got the first vote: From me.

    At that time that was the best lead (in my opinion) we got. But so much has been said since I find it very suspicious to hold onto that and being silent about it.


    But also, I allow for things occurring that prevent a soldier from returning to his post for a time. Hence, I have not (yet) voted against our very quiet mates - William, Zachary, and Louis lead that pack, but Benjamin, Mitchell, Elijah, and Warren are not very active either. 

  19. 33 minutes ago, Robert Walsh said:

    I'd be interested in Zacarhy's and Kendall's view on Morgan. We were voting him only for his first post and for the questionable absence.

    Do you think his reasons were not good enough, his absence is just the part of removing heat or you are just trying not to give a clear statement on lynching this day? Lastly you may think Reginald is not scummy.

    And if that is the reason to vote for someone (questionable absence and a questionable first post) then Zach oughta be hanged. His one and only post was to pop in and vote for me. 

  20. 2 hours ago, Arthur Hargrave said:

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

    Too dark? Sorry.

    Hey, I'm the one who brought up contagions, so your response certainly wasn't too dark IMHO.

    38 minutes ago, Louis Townsend said:

    I’m starting to think Liam May have some kind of mental issue ... not sure if his relationship with the flag warrants our sending him to the gallows. But then again ... is it worth our time to keep him around!? 

    Liam and Reginald have interesting thoughts on the pertinence of lynching day one; by interesting I actually mean questionable. 

    I’m going to follow through and vote : Liam Webb 

    Why? Why vote Liam - if my counts are correct that was only #2 on him, while Reginald (your other suspect here) had 4 at this point. If you actually wanted to get a lynch today, why did you vote for Liam? 

    And along those lines, I too believe a day 1 lynch is a good thing. I have suspicions on several (Liam's flag talk, some people who talk much and say little, some people who talk little and say little) but in the interest of getting a lynch, and because I believe his anti-lynch position to be anti-town, I will

    Vote: Reginald Aston