Capt. Redblade

Hooray for temporary incompetence! Man, I hate being vanilla. All this interesting stuff happened to me or around me and I don't even find out about it until now! As for not unvoting Pie, I guess I just saw something you lot didn't. Thanks for letting me play, Bob. It was good fun serving under you, oh captain, my captain! I guess I could have spoken up more, but that's just how I play vanilla. I don't have any actions, so I can't clear anyone on my own, so I don't know who to trust, so I trust nobody, so I stay quiet. I really have to work on that. Either way, great game everyone! Now, clear up this mess before I have you men flogged!

I'm surprised this hasn't been [bloggedcp][/bloggedcp]

Knowing Michael's win condition, plus the fact that he seems to have been converted on Night Two, I don't exactly feel comfortable leaving him be. It seems very much to me like Amateur Thief is a conversion-based role, and thus I will... Vote: Michael (badboytje88) Oops. I meant... Vote: Michael (badboytje88)

You mean the investigation result on Betty. To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of it. If she were the Godfather, as some seem to suggest, wouldn't she come up as innocent? The lack of any clear result at all is odd. What was the exact result? Was it unsuccessful? If so, perhaps the investigator was blocked. Or was the investigator simply told it was inconclusive or something? I think knowing exactly what the result was could help greatly.

My calling Michael out was for the most part an attempt to motivate him to speak. (And who among us hasn't done that?) I was skeptical of his story and was hoping he could explain it further. But whatever uneasy feelings I had toward Michael, we had an investigation result on Bristol that needed to be verified. Stuff like that should always take precedent, so my mind was made up on the vote by the time I returned from my officer-ly duties. All I can offer is the truth. I didn't like the multiple trackers debacle and it appeared that Squeaky Fromme was the scummier of the two. Upon learning Pierre was Squeaky, I voted accordingly, and things worked out about how I expected. (I.e. we got the bastard.) As for being quiet, I don't know if you've ever noticed, but that's a bad habit of mine.

We really need to clear some things up here. Vote: Bristol (Peanuts) Similarly Mafia 101: if someone refuses to lynch the person who came up scum (or if they jump on the lynch very late in the day and only after they've been called out on it, as Mary seems to have done while I was typing), they may very well be scum themselves. Not smart scum, but scum nonetheless. I'm still very wary of Mary (say that three times fast) and will continue to be so unless something very convincing tells me otherwise.

I feel that if Michael's story were true, he'd be more willing to explain and defend it. Instead, he springs this revelation on us and then completely disappears. He also had some heated words with Bristol yesterday and this could just be a retaliatory move against her. Something about this whole thing definitely seems off, but I'll wait and see if Michael has anything to say first.

I guess I could have been clearer. My point was more that, given the different kill methods, it looks to like me like we started this cruise with no less than four killers: a SK, a vigilante (whom popular opinion seems to indicate was Mattew), and two scum killers. If, as you say, Pierre was the axe-man, then where was Bottle Guy that night? My guess is blocked. We think we know what happened to our vig, so NeckSnap is probably SK. Hey, I'm not the only one with bad habits...

This was my first thought as well. If true, then it's all the more unfortunate that we should lose him. Like Richard said, I think it's clear that Mr. Necksnapper is either a vig or a SK. If I remember correctly, the consensus yesterday was that Matthew was more likely a vig, meaning that Snappy is probably a SK who accidentally helped. But I'm more curious about the scumkiller. Jonathan was killed by a blow to the head, but Scott was killed with an axe. Is this just the killer keeping things fresh, or could there be more than one at work here? Hopefully we can get some answers...

Merci! It's been a while since high school French though, so I'm not as polished as I'd like to be. I think the best way to get an explanation is to cast le vote, and give him something to answer to, so... Vote: Pierre (CallMePie)

Interesting. Pourquoi avez-vous dit un mensonge, Frenchy? (Sorry for my shaky French.)

I thought I had already asked, but if I haven't, I am now. Call me #11.

Yikes, for a second I was worried you were talking to me. I understand that. My initial thought was could this be the host making alterations to the roles to spice up the voyage? Whatever the answer, it's an odd situation. How did we get from this... ...to this? You seemed reasonably sure of the scumminess of Squeaky Fromme's claim, so why are you now questioning the existence of the other tracker? You were the one who told everyone to focus on the two trackers in the first place, and you even seemed to entertain the idea that they both existed, so this seems like an odd tangent.

I initially missed the announcement of Barbara's tracker, but, yeah, knowing that's out there, I'd like to get more info too. A potential lie about a crew number is all well and good, but a potential lie about a role is something to be scrutinized by all. If Barbara can offer anything more, I'd like to hear it. Couldn't you at least have the decency to wait until I was done composing my thoughts? But... wait... what? That doesn't sound like a normal tracker. Why was he told your result? Is this some kind of alteration to the role?

[bloggedcp][/bloggedcp]

Her affiliation. I thought I made that clear yesterday. Well, that was... interesting. You're certainly right that someone will ask why this info had to be made public, and why now of all times? So far you've been throwing out a lot of rather random-seeming theories and accusations, you started a bandwagon against young Jordan, you're duking it out rather publicly with Babs (which will get you both confined to quarters if it escalates much more), and now... this. This is all difficult to verify at the moment and, though it is possible that there may be more than two factions, all we have is your word to go on, and you have not as yet shown yourself to be more trustworthy than anyone else, in my opinion. Perhaps, then, it would make sense to share their names? Even if what you say is true, we don't know who's behind those noms de plume, so we can't act.

It is, in fact, a terrible idea, since we have been explicitly told that there are no 'bad'/'good' numbers. When you continue to vote based on numbers, even after being told your methodology is wrong, it just makes you look suspicious. I'm still a bit uneasy about Mary, personally.

Well, that's certainly too bad about the deceased. Mr. Scott may have been insubordinate, but he was a good man. And whether blocker or vigilante, Matthew will be missed. Jordan... I'm not totally surprised about, but someone always has to be first. Oh, please no. I just want out of this ridiculous costume. Jordan: 4429 Matthew: 4441 Scott: 4201 I wonder if it's significant that all their numbers start with 4?

So you put Option B in there because it's what you believe Jordan did, but you wouldn't even consider that I did the same? I'm still confused.

If I understand right, you're saying there are three possibilities for why I didn't see my number: A) I'm an idiot, which you rule out; B) I didn't check; C) I'm lying. You then suggest that I did check my PM, which was a group scum PM. If I did check the PM and say I didn't, the inference would be that I was lying, which is what you seem to be accusing me of. It seems to me like you throw Option B out there for the heck of it, then disregard it completely without explaining why. Now, if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, but do it sloooowly so I can understand.

I currently have the week off, so my time online has skyrocketed. I am the first officer. It's sort of my job to know what's happening.

It's what I do.

I think Jonathan was simply demonstrating that any random four-digit number can have a LEGO set attached. For instance, off the top of my head, 2935. As far as I know, nobody has claimed this number, but a quick search of Brickset reveals... Okay, it's a Duplo set, but you get the point.

I looked at my PM twice: once when I received it - which is when I overlooked the number - and again once most of the numbers were public. I did not know the importance of the numbers the first time, indeed no one did, so it didn't register in my mind. Once it was established that the numbers had some significance, I checked again and saw it. I find it amusing how your accusation seems to contradict the assertion that precedes it; your thoughts are that I "have to be very dense to miss it, or not check, or lying." If you're willing to entertain the third option, even if only for a second, why do you automatically assume I'm lying? Furthermore, voting for a purely metagame reason seems somewhat counterproductive when we have a potential lead in our midst.

It's not paranoia if you're right. Vote: Mary (TheBoyWonder)