Peter Lyon

My point was that we don't have a 4th blocker claim, or any indication that players were blocked other than from the current three blockers. That's one of the things that we needed to look for in the Emmett/Vincent interaction. Vincent is saying he did not successfully target anyone, and that his role is sensitive enough to not want to share with the scum team. If that's true, then he's town and would likely be indicating that he was blocked from his action in order to offer us up the notion that there could be a 4th blocker out there. He's not saying that, so if he's town, he doesn't think there's a 4th blocker. If he's lying about it and is scum, then it's a nice place to hide. Of course, in that case, a town blocker would've targeted him and let us know about it by now. So there's probably no fourth blocker. Since it's relevant to Alex's lynch, I will say that I'm not vanilla. I'll admit to being in a similar boat to Vincent in that I believe my role is better kept out of scum's knowledge. I understand that the same caveat I gave to Vincent being scum would apply to me... it is a nice place to hide if needed, but so be it. I would argue that the folks who haven't confirmed their role or had another player suggest they can't be the killer are in the same group as Fabian, Trenton, and myself... unless we have a claim we can validate, we are all suspect of being the killer. That's not true at all. If he's claiming vanilla as scum, he can easily be the killer and just lying about it. I hadn't previously considered the possibility he's Godfather, and that does make for a logical claim if you aren't thinking about the possibility of role madness. It's entirely possible the scum team either didn't metagame the host or thought, "surely he wouldn't repeat the same thing". Unvote: Justin Reynaud Vote: Alex Howe

Unless the host is merely trying to give the illusion of power. Not every role has to have a function. If the killer is a strongman, we have much bigger problems. Fred came to you in the night to claim his role and you coordinated actions. At this point, it seems that those were carried out, so there's no reason to think that he doesn't have the action. That's true for both your and Andrew's blocking claims. Everything appears to check out as far as the targets are concerned. I don't see how this would be helpful unless they knew who was going to be blocked. We've got three claimed blockers and a claimed protector. That's 4 possible ways to prevent a scum kill. Scum probably can't risk it. Justin, my vote for you is because of the day 1 and 2 voting patterns. As for Alex... I'd rather still vote for Justin at this point. One thing I will say about Alex, I think it's nonsense to say that him claiming his role explicitly stated he was vanilla is a violation of the rules. If so, you can argue that anyone stating their role publicly is violating quoting the host. I just don't think that's the point of that rule. Conversely, you could say that the lack of a punishment would indicate he's lying. That would seem to break the game, IMO.

Daniel later says they're not exactly working together, but they're sharing reads and while they aren't working together, per se, it does sound like they coordinated actions last night. From a pure role claiming standpoint, Andrew's Vanillaizer sounds the weirdest and made up. The fort records suggest the traditional version of the role is typically anti-town, which makes me think it's a terrible scum claim. Daniel's Jailkeeper is now starting to sound to me like a reasonable balance for town protection with so many roles. Fred's straight blocker claim sounds the most like what we'd expect to be on either team. I have found Fred pretty scummy all game, but I haven't heard anyone argue against his, or any of the blocker's action claims. I think those votes are certainly worth looking into. You already know my past thoughts on Fred. Robin, Emmett, and Trenton are fairly similar in my mind at this point. I feel like Robin has been the least helpful, but I'm not sure if that has equated to scummy. I think the day 1 interaction and Vincent's other points on Justin make him a reasonable choice for today. He has yet to say anything that really alleviates those concernts. Vote: Justin Reynaud

I assume you threatened Daniel that you were going to share your conversation with us all first thing when the day breaks, and he told you to PM at least 5 people, but you didn't PM anyone, not even Aiden who we should all trust for no reason! Why does everyone immediately assume that if they share their role with scum, scum will kill them the same night? I think that's likely true for certain roles, but not all of them. I assume that the first person is not Andrew and that Andrew's comment is a second case of "Jean must know something". Ummm... what? Why are you called a "vanilaizer" if your action is just a regular blocking action?

There are different levels of trust.

I'm trying to read as little of what you're saying as possible, so I may be missing things... my apologies. I guess I'm able to see the case that they're not both scum and also not masons. It's entirely possible. Vincent's choice of Aiden is perfectly logical even if they're not masons. They don't have to both be scum for that. Vincent said he trusted Aiden with this information because Aiden was going after you aggressively. Hence you are not on the same team. It's not the same as trusting Aiden completely. If Vincent is town, I'm not sure the information he shared with Aiden was sensitive enough to need to share it with 5 people. All he needs is someone not on your team. If you're scum, Aiden is safe. If Aiden is scum, you're probably safe and sharing the PM's is fine because he hasn't revealed anything critical to the town and you're not going to be able to kill him anyway. Aiden won't kill him either because hey, a townie is sharing information. In the Vincent is scum perspective, it again doesn't matter who he shared it with. He could just as easily have shared it with scummy teammate Aiden as with honorable townie Aiden. That would curry favor with a townie.

I still think Fred's among the scummiest right now. I think some of his more recent comments ping me less, but it's the earlier behavior that bothers me. First, asking for the lynch/no-lynch stance but not commenting until others had. Later, following other people's votes around. Lastly, pushing hard for Alex to confirm/deny Daniel's claim. In the meantime, Vote: Joshua Levitt The lynch on Joshua is stalling out and I think there's something to the charges against him. I don't much care to nitpick someone's actions when they aren't feeling well, which is why I've held off on joining to this point, but I don't want us to lose momentum here given that he is still suspicous. The interesting thing to me right now about the Daniel/Vincent thing is that Daniel is pushing hard for us to lynch Vincent and, eventually Aiden, but they are no longer pushing hard to lynch Daniel. This is really the first thing that's making me seriously consider voting for Daniel despite his claim. However, I don't think the scum will automatically target Daniel if he's town... they'll only do so if they think he's a real threat and they're confident he won't be watched. C'mon man, this is life and DEATH!

Sorry for having been absent. My weekend duties around the fort have been far more involved than I would have liked. Actually, you did say that... emphasis mine as that's the part I quoted: At any rate, that wasn't really the point of what I was trying to say early this morning. What I was demonstrating was how many folks were all in favor of lynching day 1 and how few of those folks actually made an effort to get us close to one. As for Daniel's Jailkeeper claim. I think it's a much safer claim for a scum than claiming blocker. A town blocker other than Daniel would have to weigh how likely it would be that we'd have both a blocker and a jailkeeper and that it's worth coming out publicly for the scum to know about it. Alex, whether or not he has a PR, has been relatively quiet (I realize I'm the far blacker pot calling the kettle black here), who could just as well be a scum teammate of Daniel's. Assuming Alex is town, I would expect him only to chime in if Daniel is lying about blocking him. If he's vanilla he can't confirm or deny and if he has a PR, the only reason he ought to claim that he was indeed blocked is if Daniel gets close to being lynched and he wants that not to happen. If Daniel doesn't get close to the votes needed, Alex ought to just stay quiet and let the town PR's sort it out. Personally, I'm fine with that approach. The less clarity the scum have the better.

You'd think someone would've heard the cannon and tried to catch the shooter... do we not have any guards on duty at night? As Vincent said, Remi didn't comment much the second half of the day. I'm guessing he was killed because he was unlikely to be watched. I don't think that says anything one way or another about Jean or Andrew. For a group of people that included several who were quite in favor of a lynch, we really didn't get very close to one. In the final vote tally: Looking back at the discussion of folks who were eager to have a lynch, the only person who really stated any sort of opinion on it was Emmett, and Emmett was the one who said he didn't think we had the knowledge to make an informed decision. So at least his not voting is consistent with what he said about lynching. Fred asked who wanted a lynch or no-lynch. Emmett said he didn't think we could, implying a no-lynch position, but later claimed he wasn't against it. Vincent said he was "typically" for it (very neutral) Andrew said it was "vital" Aiden implied he was for a lynch, but didn't really come out and say it one way or another Justin said it was "critical" Joshua called out "more than one person already pushing for a no-lynch" (this wasn't actually happening), but was worried about anyone pushing for a no-lynch Trenton said "a vote is vital to determine where people stand", and "same goes for a lynch". Fred found himself "thinking we should have a lynch today" Andrew, Trenton, and Joshua all voted on their own. Justin started the vote for Aiden, which got the "most" votes at 3. That's not really saying much since we had twice that many people not even vote. Vincent was the second vote on Justin, following Jean who switched to Andrew. Fred jumped around a bit before settling on Aiden to try to get us moving closer to a lynch. Justin and Aiden were tied at the time, as Aiden had just voted for Justin and Justin and Daniel had just voted for Aiden. Looking at it now, that whole series of votes was interesting. Robin was leading everyone else with 2 votes after voting for the absent Michael. Aiden moved from Daniel to Justin. Daniel moved from Vincent to Aiden. Fred then moves from Robin to Aiden. It was all very late, so there wasn't any real hope of getting a lynch. I know I was on Fred a bit yesterday, and I admit to not having read all of the Daniel/Vincent argument in much detail, but it seems to me that Fred jumped in on someone else's argument and wasn't so much keeping up as trying to get anyone lynched or look consistent. Not much caring about the actual outcome so much as how he looked in the end.

I do like your beard! Maybe when I'm as old as you mine will be as magnificent. I think you missed the point I made behind my vote for you. My concerns with you were around the notion that you asked for people to give an opinion on lynching vs. no lynching, but only gave yours after several others had done so. As scum, that would be a nice way to feel out the town and then join in once you know what others are saying. While I think Robin's vote is a waste, I can't say I think it's a likely scum move. The votes for him seem rather eager. "Hey look! Someone did something obviously unhelpful, we've found scum!"

Mercy buckets! This does feel a bit like you're just trying to follow Andrew here. Filling the great void of not having a vote on all the non-contributers... not really something we were asking for. Who all did you see pushing for a no-lynch? Who among them do you find particularly troubling? There's something odd about this interaction to me. Dumont called for everyone to say what they felt about a no-lynch, but didn't give his opinion. Then when called out (?) later, he "finds himself thinking" he wants a lynch. Oh yeah, several people have already said they were for a lynch in rather clear terms. Vote: Fred Dumont

Mr. Lucas, as Lieutenant of this fort, I require that 5 barrels be brought from the Clipper to my quarters for a thorough customs inspection. Tout suite!

Peter Lyon, Lieutenant of the Fart, is present and reporting! My apologies in advance.