Duvors

I think I’ll just go ahead and attribute my win ultimately to luck. I personally think that I’m not a very skilled player, though I seem to be a very good liar. Every time I’ve scrupulously told the truth in one of these games people have suspected me, but the moment I start lying through my teeth everyone takes me at my word. That said, I have a confession to make. I really didn’t start playing the game seriously until the second day. I’ve been scum so many times in a row now that I wasn’t really enthusiastic to discover I was going to be scum again, so it took me a while to motivate myself.

He's probably just busy. In any event, I can figure out what happened without resorting to my night action results. Firstly, it’s likely that Hammond was some kind of scum blocker and you are your team’s killer. On the first night he blocked Duncan and you killed Robert to clear yourself. You weren’t very active yesterday, so I think what happened was that you simply weren’t online when the thread jumped Hammond and couldn’t turn it around in time. Duncan was right when he said that no-one could deny his claim of having been blocked in the night without outing themselves, so you took the rather clever tack of saying you were a town blocker, a role moderately difficult for scum to fake, but a good way to take advantage of the situation. I have no doubt that you told the truth about contacting Duncan during the night, as you’d want his ghost vote tomorrow and lying about what he said in the day threads would cost you that. In any case, after telling him you’d block Neville, you then murdered Duncan and tried to pin the blame on me. An audacious plan, and one hinging on the assumption that Neville had no night action, but not a bad one. Your voting has been remarkably consistent by the by, I seem to remember you've voted for me every day so far. You must have pegged me as an easy lynch early on.

Vote: Michael "Navigator" Cassidy (KotZ)

I’m sorry I wasn’t available yesterday (irl), as I’ve said before I haven’t had enough free time to properly devote to this game. If I had been here sooner I’d’ve responded before now. This is a lie. Unfortunately I can’t do anything to prove it. So instead I’ll lay my cards on the table. I am a Parity Cop. This is somewhat complex, but each night I can target a player and then learn if their alignment matches that of the player I targeted on the preceding night. On the first night I targeted Hammond (due to preexisting suspicions toward him) but as I (by definition) hadn’t targeted anyone else that left me with no usable information going into day two. I admit that my initial vote for Duncan was primarily due to him ticking me off, but I changed votes to Hammond because he told an obvious lie in public (or seemed to, his confusion might’ve been sincere for all that he was scum). I was in fact the only person to notice this before calling him out on it, despite Duncan also quoting the post in which the lie was made, which as a scum I’d’ve had no reason to do. If I were scum, then I’d’ve just let it fly under the radar and taken the easy win (seriously, the chances of Neville changing his vote without me calling out Hammond would’ve been like pulling teeth, and nearly still was even after). On the second night, I targeted Neville (since he was the main suspect at the time) and got a result of ‘different’ (i.e., different from Hammond). This being the case I have to conclude that Neville is a pirate and Cassidy is a traitor.

My apologies if any of that came of as a little harsh. I rather lost my temper there.

Actually, the 2/5 thing might not be a big a deal as I think it is, I’m not a statistician. Still, I think it was misused in the original context. Bollocks. Your claim to being the doctor is unprovable by your own admission, and could just as easily be a desperation move by a redcoat, thus it does not warrant consideration. And anyway, Hammond is clearly waffling on unvoting you. He unvoted someone else earlier in the thread, so his claim of not knowing if he could is an obvious lie. That was a mistake on my part. I meant to write ‘innocent’, as actually taking the time to parse the sentence I wrote would make clear. And then immediately dismissed that as unlikely, thus declaring him above suspicion, which is what I was referring to. If you had the necessary intelligence to parse the written word properly you would have understood that. The entire reason I focused on you to begin with is that you lifted a single word of mine out of context and used it as the basis for voting for me, a word in a statement that you have just acknowledged was in support of you. In fact, if we intend to bicker about semantics, how about I just quote it here to save your lazy big behind the trouble of scrolling up: I should point out that what I said was that it seemed to exonerate two living players, which is much less of a definite statement than you’ve been making it out to be. I have not ‘learned’ you are the doctor. No one here has ‘learned’ you are the doctor. You have merely made an unverifiable assertion and now are acting as if it should be taken at face value by everyone. In point of fact, what it amounts to is jack shit. You have simply made a claim to scare someone into changing their vote. That said, I have to say, having given it some thought, I believe you. It’s not because of anything you’ve done, and I stand by everything I’ve just said, but the fact remains that Hammond has just told a deliberate lie to avoid changing his vote while making it look like he wants to. To quote the relevant post: The issue is, in an earlier post in this thread he said the following: Ergo, he is lying, and since he did so after both my hammer vote and Duncan’s doctor claim, he must be a redcoat, and Duncan must a pirate, which means that Duncan’s claim is probably true. Therefore, James must die. To hell with him. Unvote: Duncan "Parrot-Keeper” Gage (Def) Vote: James "One-Leg” Hammond (Trekkie99)

You never explicitly said you were exonerated, just as you never explicitly said that you being a pirate was an acknowledged fact. But the way you phrased your statements implied both, which is the point I was making. By constantly repeating the assertion that you are a pirate in the tone of an objective observer you are, in fact, implying that you are a proven pirate without actually saying so. There is such a thing as misleading through implication, you know. And your remark about a 2/5 chance can only apply to the chances of a single pirate voting correctly, not to the whole group. As for the 'exonerate’ issue, firstly, acting as if a single word is in any way a decisive issue is pure semantics, and makes you guilty of exactly the kind of word twisting you are impugning me with. How I phrased it is irrelevant, what matters is that I took the following remark from you at face value: I admit to scanning the text more than reading it the first go around, which is why I assumed that you were explicitly stating that it exonerated you and took it as established that Cannonball’s death seemed to clear you and Cassidy at a stroke. But reading it again, it would be hard to say that it wasn’t worded specifically to induce that impression. It followed the statement that Cassidy was likely guilty with an assertion that implicitly lumped you in with the only proven pirate and with one that you had just declared above suspicion. It says you can right in the rules, you bloody numpty.

Well, after some thought, Duncan is either a manipulator or a fool. I’ll choose the less insulting option. I vote for Duncan "Parrot-Keeper" Gage (Def).

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

You're using extremely tenuous reasoning here. I was simply repeating your comment as I understood it. The use of the word ‘exonerate’ is hardly a telling detail. And on the matter of ‘tenuous reasoning’: This is a quote from yesterday, from you, in which you assert you are a loyal pirate as if it was an acknowledged fact—instead of an unproven assertion—and then when on to state that this gave the crew a 2/5 chance of voting correctly, which is incorrect. Your knowledge of your own role does not effect the chances of the crew successfully voting off a redcoat unless it is a proven fact acknowledged by the rest of the crew—which it emphatically is not. Today, I note, you continue to write as if your status as a pirate is a proven fact, and your opening post is clearly written in a way that implies that you should be seen as exonerated even if it doesn’t explicitly say so When my explicit use of the word ‘exonerate' (born, frankly, from not having enough time at my disposal to examine the issue throughly and taking your words a little too much at face value) inadvertently put you on the spot, you immediately backtracked, repeated your assertion that you know you are a pirate (and, implicitly, above suspicion), and then added a line about ‘making your own judgement’ that was not present in the original post—implicitly or otherwise—and seems intended to make the original post retroactively appear less leading than it is. And then you immediately choose to vote for me over what amounts to a petty question of semantics. Incidentally, I should also note that most of your criticisms of Neville could just as easily apply to Hammond. He spent entirely too long yesterday choosing who to vote for, and didn’t vote at all until pressured into it (by me) and wasted it on a throwaway vote against Neville before proceeding to be completely unhelpful for the rest of the day. And now he’s made two seemingly random votes in rapid succession—seemingly random, because they seem to be based on ‘who’s voting for Paul Prescott’. Blow me if I know what the heck he’s up to. Thank you, by the way. I haven’t been taking this game as seriously as I should up till now, both due to mental exhaustion and a lack of free time on my part, but your logical ineptitude has angered me sufficiently that I can finally engage with this game properly. Look, I was just going off the standard tactics I‘ve used when playing scum in the past. If you think that it was done specifically to clear Cassidy then that’s a perfectly logical assumption. I don’t know who to vote for at the moment. Duncan could be the right choice, I’ve just built a rather elaborate case for suspect behavior on his part, and with the number of votes on him now I could easily hammer him if I wanted. But frankly it could all just as easily be poor reasoning on his part. And I’m still suspicious of Hammond, he’s been acting strangely and flying under the radar since the game began, and as he was the first person to vote for Duncan that makes me leery of following his lead. You, Neville, have done the Pirates more harm than good with your constant vacillation, and Cassidy is in my mind the least suspicious. We have some hours left, so I’ll be able to come back and make a decision when I’ve given it some proper thought.

No, that would run the risk of ending the game too early if there are two killers. My point is that he may have been targeted simply because he did the least of note yesterday, thus limiting how much could be gleaned from his actions on the morrow. There is also the point Duncan raised, being that Robert's death seems to exonerate two living players. If this is true then suspicion would naturally be directed toward the remaining three, being you, myself, and James.

It may be the case that he was killed because his actions yesterday wouldn’t provide any actionable information. So perhaps the correct course is examine what he didn’t do (or wasn’t done to him, at any rate).

It’s not a real vote if you don’t bold it mate.

I doubt it. To be honest, I’ve said nothing because I had nothing to say. Anyway, voting is mandatory, and we gain nothing by waiting. I vote for James "One-Leg" Hammond for speaking up twice since voting opened and not voting for anyone.

Hello.