Alex Howe

"I've just always wanted a lynch" doesn't sound like particularly townie reasoning when you are always the second vote on what are probably bandwagons against town players. You certainly weren't in early wanting a lynch of Joshua, were you? Not particularly challenging, no. How is pretending to block someone on your own team a challenge? You'd be at risk of being tracked, certainly, but yesterday why would a tracker have any reason to target you in particular? I'd say it was a pretty safe move to attempt to cement you both as town by validating each other. Just mighty convenient that you happened to block each other and it happened to be you, and not Daniel, that blocked Andrew last night, that is my point. Your voting pattern does not assist you either. As I said, I am not saying this for the benefit of changing things now, but rather because I would like everyone to scrutinise you, Andrew and Daniel very closely tomorrow once I flip town. Good luck planning your actions tonight to give yourself validation, if you are scum. It was more of a generic pounced-on-everyone type statement, not me in particular. But I appreciate the sentiment of your post. Take my words more as suggesting a way to encourage everyone else to speak up more going forward. Hopefully that will provide room for people that were not saying much, like me, to step forward and contribute (or expose themselves!).

It seems the consensus is swinging towards lynching me as being a helpful way to more thoroughly scrutinise the role claims, so I suppose I must go along with it. However, as a word of warning, I think people are getting too caught up in trying to outsmart the host by guessing the structure of the game based on metagaming so I would urge you all to be thorough but cautious tomorrow when I flip town. My best guess is that there are indeed a lot of roles, possibly I could even be the only vanilla townie, or one of perhaps two if Michael happened to be vanilla as well. It does seem odd with so many blocker-type claims, but here we are. For what it is worth, I'll Vote: Fred Dumont, based on his voting pattern. I think tomorrow it would be worth analysing carefully the people that pushed to vote for me without actually committing to it as well. Emmett's tracker role claim was surprising but certainly more believable than the number of blocker claims, although it would be interesting to hear his result first tomorrow before any other results are reported, to test his findings. I find the Fred/Andrew relationship interesting. Fred coordinated blocking last night with Daniel, and conveniently cleared Andrew of being the killer. Notice Fred and Andrew have each targeted each other, such that they are validating each other's claims but nobody else is validating them. I think everyone should take careful note of who they block tonight and who else other than them is able to validate their claims. Perfectly conceivable that they could both be scum. Blocker claims are very easy to hide behind for a few days, which is long enough to thin out town number sufficiently to grab a win. It is very easy to report a successful or unsuccessful block against a fellow scum team mate, and one of them could be a scum blocker and block a townie to try and get independent validation. Take careful note. I still don't follow the logic that the rest of the scum were prepared with claims but I was not. If I were scum, my scum buddies would have prepared me with a claim. They do get to talk to each other and they will have planned ahead. I'd like people to take note of this tomorrow when I flip town. Note how Vincent states that everyone who has claimed is not a killer. I can pretty much guarantee that somewhere in that little web of role claims, there is very likely someone from the scum team lurking, so I would not discount a deceitful role claim that is hiding the killer. In closing, as far as not being hugely present, I did set out with high hopes of engaging with everyone, hopes which were very swiftly crushed by the incredibly long and unnecessary posting that went on in Day 1 and also in Day 2. By the end of Day 2 I will admit I had somewhat given up on being able to contribute anything without being immediately pounced on by the same two people as was happening time and time again. There comes a point where one needs to tone down the volume of posting in order to allow other people the chance to contribute and be heard. Sure I am one of the quieter ones, I admit that and I was particularly caught up in other commitments the past week unfortunately, but with two people on 120 and 168 posts each and the majority of other players on 20 to 40 posts each, some more some less, the difference in volume is extremely noticeable. If the two biggest posters are indeed town, I would encourage them to consider how other townies like myself struggle to make sense of the discussion when it is difficult to break in and be heard.

While that is one way of viewing it, a more cynical person might suspect that you are setting things up to more easily lynch a blocker tomorrow once I flip town. I don't see the massive benefit of confirming whether this is role madness or not; regardless, one of the blockers can still be scum. When I flip town, you will assume one is lying because it is not role madness. If I were to flip scum, that doesn't mean they aren't lying though. I think the two points are mutually exclusive. So while I have no problem with being lynched if there is a clear benefit to the town, I don't see confirming role madness or not as beneficial. You are welcome to make a case for it though, so perhaps you can forecast outcomes for: (a) I flip town and it is not role madness; or (b) I flip scum and it is confirmed as role madness. The outcome of options (a) and (b) do not really have any impact on whether one of the blockers is lying, as a scum blocker would still claim to be a town blocker. There is also still the possibility that they are indeed all town, that isn't off the table. I don't see the connection between my role and proving anything against them, it is a weak benefit if anything at all. It is a lot of assumptions to make based on the structure of a previous game, I would prefer to focus on what is going on in this one.

Can you clarify how testing my claim will assist the town? What clarity does it provide should I flip town tomorrow? Sure if I flipped scum that would be helpful, but I don't see the added benefit of testing my claim even if I flip town, can you explain?

Regrettably I can't say much to dissuade you from voting for me if you think I am lying about being vanilla based purely on metagaming from the format of a previous game, but do at least consider why I would make such a claim if it were not true, given the obvious risks. Why would I clarify a vanilla claim if I were scum trying to lie in what otherwise appears to be a role madness game? After all the warnings earlier today and the plentiful opportunities given to enable me to claim a passive role, if I were scum I would definitely have done so. Don't worry, I am just as confused as the rest of you right now as given that nobody else seems willing to admit to being vanilla, I do not understand how I could be the only person here without a role. Possibly Governor Broadside is attempting to test us all regarding the traps of metagaming! With metagaming in mind, the scum team will obviously be prepared with role claims so why would I, if I am scum, claim vanilla? The scum team will definitely have discussed this already so if I were scum I would be well informed not to claim vanilla, it is far too risky. Plus, very easy to be caught out as scum with a vanilla claim. If I were scum, I would probably have claimed my real role as a town role. On the rules point, I didn't quote my letter from Governor Broadside, I merely said I checked to make sure I used the correct word for my role, as for any other role claim, and I am sure Governor Broadside would have stepped in if what I said was not acceptable. If I were to claim blocker or knight or "vanilaizer" or whatever other role, naturally it would be implied that I am using the word that was in my enlistment letter. Obviously take it how you want to, but there was discussion of whether I was claiming no role or a passive role and I clarified that my role is vanilla. I could be lying about that, sure, but will lynching me for claiming vanilla actually clarify anything for anyone when I flip town tomorrow? Doubtful. Given that I know my own claim is true, I feel we should be scrutinising the role claims a bit more intensely. The scum are hiding somewhere, either behind a fake role or claiming their real scum role and pretending to be town. For example, it is within the realm of probability that there is a scum blocker, but I would somewhat doubt that there are three town blocker-type roles as well (i.e. four plus blockers in a group of 16), especially with only one kill per night so far and no kills blocked apparently. There don't seem to be multiple killers around to be blocked unless the town vigilant has already been killed (or perhaps there is a limited use town killer role, I suppose). And what do three "minor role" claims and two "role" claims suggest? Obviously not all of these people can be town. Lastly, the people that are willing to go after me are very interesting. Emmett and Vincent have raised concerns, without pushing for a vote. Robin started a vote, swiftly followed by Fred, exactly the same as they did when voting against Daniel yesterday. I find Fred's voting pattern concerning. He is quick to jump on Daniel yesterday, he is quick to jump on me today, but he did not jump on Justin today and he was the last vote on Joshua yesterday after all was said and done. Coincidence? Fabien's summary above is helpful in respect of Joshua's post. I agree with you Fabien, there is likely a scum player in that list of players that Joshua analysed. There could be more than one. Very interesting that Justin and Robin are there.

Hi all! Sorry, I have been so busy with my morning soldierly duties I have only just had time to join you all! So sorry! Unfortunately I don't have much more light to shed on my role claim, I have no night action as I said. I even re-checked my enlistment letter to be sure I hadn't misread. After checking, it does explicitly use the word vanilla. I make sure I go to sleep on time every day and I don't do anything at night. I am getting a bit of a vibe of a town strategy to suggest a role madness game to try and catch out someone from the scum team or to protect the power roles that have already claimed, it is somewhat implied in the delicate discussion going on today, but unfortunately nobody PMed me last night to discuss that strategy so I only have what is in the day thread to go off. Given the uncertainty and the desire to discuss my response, and given any smart scum player should have caught on already when I made my response that this is probably not a role madness game anyway, as why else would a townie claim vanilla (other than perhaps to encourage someone from the scum side to also claim vanilla and be caught out), I think for the benefit of clarity it is best that I simply confirm my role as it is, which is that I don't have one. Nobody else has jumped forward to also claim vanilla and back me up, which either suggests hesitancy based on the structure of the previous game or that there are a lot of power roles around regardless of my claim. Or possibly I am messing up a town tactic by making my claim, in which case I apologise for that. Hope the above is of assistance!

Oh boy, I sure was hungry! So hungry that I had a nap right after lunch and seem to have missed a lot of excitement! Sorry about that. Still catching up as there is a LOT of back and forth discussion happening, but to answer this question quickly now, I was not informed that I was jailed, no. I do not have any action though, so I don't think I would necessarily be informed?

Oh no, Captain Blaise!! What an awful way to go! Although if promotions will be made, I should note I am an eager and talented young recruit ready for the challenges of being an officer! Mum will be so proud if I make Captain so fast! I'll try to shout less today, my excitement to be here has been tainted a bit by the first death of one of our own. Captain Blaise seems like an easy scum kill with little risk, taking out someone non-controversial that won't stir up much discussion. Thinking through the scum reasoning for doing so, seems to me they either want to encourage more of the lengthy and distracting discussion that was going on yesterday as they found that sufficiently chaotic to hide in, or they thought taking out someone more involved in discussion would be too risky for them. Leaving Mr Denis and Mr Lucas to argue things out during the day gives them time to thin numbers by killing others at night, as day lynches of each of Mr Vincent and Mr Lucas would take two days to get through, whereas killing one at night and lynching the other the next day (were the night death to implicate the other as scum, which it could well have done), takes one less day. If one of them is scum, I am sure they would rather have the extra day of buffer to mount a defense, and easier to argue that the surviving one is a townie following a day lynch rather than following a scum kill. So if one is scum, easier to survive this by getting the other lynched during the day. Mr Denis raised valid concerns about night PMing which has set the stage for a potential lynch of Mr Lucas. Should Mr Lucas flip town, I think Mr Denis would have an easier time of brushing that off than were Mr Denis to be lynched and Mr Lucas to survive him. In my mind, the scum would probably prefer Mr Denis to be lynched today, it makes the case against Mr Lucas tomorrow a lot easier (assuming both are town). If one is scum, they will not want to be too direct in pushing for the lynch of the other. Note Mr Dumont's comment which does exactly the opposite. Very suggestive if both were to flip town. The above makes Mr Lucas' assertions about lying in his nighttime PMs a bit odd, it seems like a weak argument to try and set the firing squad on Mr Denis today. Based on the above and with a few votes against Mr Lucas, Mr Denis do you think that is the right course of action? Or should we be looking at one of the other suspects? There is the discussion of how Mr Levitt and Mr Laurent have acted. I also still find Mr Tremblay's vote yesterday very troubling and his vote today against Mr Lucas does not make me feel more comfortable really, almost like an attempt to get the bandwagon rolling while it appears easy to do so. Mr Dumont's comment supports that although I note he did vote for Mr Tremblay yesterday, yet he is following his vote today. That is rather odd. There was no chance of a majority yesterday, so perhaps his vote yesterday was to try and disconnect himself from Mr Tremblay? A bit obvious though to then vite immediately after him, unless the scum are keen to build a swift bandwagon and then point at Mr Denis tomorrow as being the one that presented the evidence for it. Hmm.

Whip it out Mr Ware, let's play!

Well I'll be honest with you! That is a lot of verbose discussion right there! And for a wee young new recruit like me with little to no experience to draw on, fresh off the boat so to speak and eager to learn, how on earth am I meant to make sense of it all!? I think it is all a bit too much Mr Lucas and Mr Denis, I can't make head nor tail of it all! I think it is good that you are both pressing each other hard, but maybe it is a bit too hard for the first day of this adventure!? You'll be sore and worn out before we have even started huffing and puffing like that! If he is a dead man anyway this vote seems rather...! Unhelpful!? After trawling through all the rose gardens and associated mud-slinging, this rather off-hand vote seems fishier than anything swimming beneath the clipper right now! To take a different angle from all the back and forth going on so far, which I don't think will resolve itself by the end of the day and will just result in no lynch and probably no lunch as well, I'll Vote: Robin Tremblay because that vote makes no sense to me at all!

Weeeeee!! My what a view I have had from up on the giraffe! I do hope I get daily rides accompanied by Mr Denis blowing a lot! So much talk of poking! I do love a good poke! But it doesn't seem very conducive to catching anyone out right now! Although it has certainly stirred up some lively rum-fueled discussion! Mr Laurent! You are welcome to mount the giraffe after me, despite your poking and prodding! But like others I too find the coin flip explanation a tad unnecessary! I don't think it warrants a vote against you right now, but it is worth noting! Mr Reynaud! You may have a luxurious and enviable moustache but your poking makes me more uncomfortable that Mr Laurent's hard poking! Mr Levitt reported for duty yet your poke remains firmly poked! You did not even acknowledge his late arrival when you later responded to Lieutenant Pelley! Possibly you were distracted by his even more enviable moustache and bold sideburns!

I knew this posting would be full of excitement! Already, exotic animals and lively seamen! We'll get those scummy Imperial Guards in no time, I have no doubt! Mr Laurent sir, I think Mr Denis is just pumping his pipes for a good long blow later! I'm sure he will put on such a great rousing performance for us! Captain Blaise sir! Permission to ride the giraffe!?

Hi everyone! I'm so excited to be here! I've been dreaming of this since I was a kid, which I guess was only last year! Hahahaha! What a lovely fort! Lieutenant Dumont sir! For the record I think your face is beautiful! I aspire to have such manly facial hair one day when I am an officer!