Piratedave84

I have to agree with you here, there was in fact a dividing line in the votes; we should still consider that it is possible that scum voted outside the bandwagon although it would have been very easy for them to hide in the group. Re-reading the post, I can see how my wording was not the best; the intention was not to let Molly go but rather to express two opinions in one post. 1) Her vote and it's justification were very odd and struck me as innapropriate and 2) her past behaviour and behaviour since the weird vote had been pretty townie; these two points IMO balanced each other out. I never thought she was lying "all along", this was my first post about her lying. Her 'soft claim', then the 'claim to claim' and the conclusion that she was Vanilla made me believe she was not vanilla and she therefore earned my vote. I ... what!? I'm going to echo Tristan, Kenneth and Clay and say that this is a bad idea. Yesterday you assumed you would be killed or lynched soon and today you post this; why? I don't think a scummo would be so bold as to flat out ask/volunteer to be killed ... but then again maybe this is the idea behind your behaviour. You're not the first to mention the posibility of a cult; I personally find it difficult to believe that such a party exist but you never know. What makes you think there is a cult and why would one of it's member volunteer to die which would then reveal (or allude to) the party's existence.

What I meant was that interpreting yesterday's bandwagon is difficult if not impossible; people have been throwing wild guesses as to whom voted when in a situation when everyone but 4 voted for the same person. The main suspect being discussed today does not appear in anyone's 'analysis'. I personally think that analyzing the bandwagon is futile. I'm not implying it did, I am sating that it definitely did; Tony voted for Caleb which broke the second tie followed by Molly who not only sealed the faith of Caleb but furthered the gap in his favor knowing full well that Kenneth had no intention to vote; her vote was the last one to be cast and as such was a decisive one I don't think I dismissed it; Molly answered, I was satisfied. Where did I blow it off before she answered? Again, see above. I'm pretty sure I followed it through at least to a point where I felt satisifed with the answer. If you feel like this needs to be looked into further, then be my guest. Yes, was it not clear?

What a mess, Esther why did you have to be so 'flaily' and wishy-washy. I also tracked the voting order and patterns but the vote on day 1 was split 3 ways and day 2 was so decisive that there is litterally nothing we (or at least I) can read into. I did not want to make a serious case against Molly, I was pointing out how out of place and odd her vote had been considering the circumstances at the time it was cast. I also never claimed to distrust Molly and I sure as hell don't want to lead; in a previous life I was thrust in that position and it was not pretty. So you are right in saying that I was not trying to lead because I was not. As for the vote on Esther, I think it was clear as I pointed out yesterday that my vote was based on my being sick of her little game and of the amount of time which we wasted on that case. for reference in case you missed it: (please excuse the poor formatting, I don't know how to quote 'quotes in quotes') If so you omitted to account for this: And so everyone is clear, this was my justification: I did not base my vote on her claiming or not but rather on my belief that Esther was lying all along. Her later claim reinforced my point. Your vote and general behaviour leads me to believe that you know Esther is town and you are therefore steering clear of her lynch.

Welcome Fhomess, glad you're on board!

Don't forget to bold your vote!

Her initially not claiming did play a part in my belief that she was lying, yes. I still think that she is not vanilla; why would a vanilla townie put on a big circus and distract us from other events 2 days in a row? Your vote is fair, time will tell who is right.

Sorry for the previous post; my phone is retarded Is this the reason you are refering to? If so you omitted to account for this: And so everyone is clear, this was my justification: I did not base my vote on her claiming or not but rather on my belief that Esther was lying all along. Her later claim reinforced my point. Your vote and general behaviour leads me to believe that you know Esther is town and you are therefore steering clear of her lynch.

I have to say that your logic is pretty sound; I did not perceive it that way.

Considering the events that unfolded, this is kind of a pointless argument we are having here. I still stand by my point that claiming publicly is/was a bad move. I am pretty sure that the opposite Of your argument is true in that scum would probably have asked Esther to claim publicly in order to have a definitive fix on her role. I ask you the same question; how would asking someone to claim in private be a benefit to scum?

Yesterday Esther had both supporters and detractors, why not confide in a supporter? Waht is so flawed in asking her not to claim publicly? The way I thought of it (at the time) was that claiming a NA in thread would hurt town by guaranteeing her death. My vote, I feel, is sufficiently justified. The events since my vote just encourage me to keep my vote where it is.

I'm tired of this pretend claim business and all the wild accusations; I now believe that Esther does not have a PR as if she did she would/ should have claimed by now. Unless things change I will: vote: Esther (Esurient) Esther, if you are town and if you have a NA, now is the time to fight for you to come out and fight for your life. For the sake of proper formatting: Vote: Esther Thomson (Esurient) WTF really!! vote: Esther Thompson (Esurient)

You understand that you have claimed twice now right? How is your actually telling us your role going to be a benefit to us? My thoughts exactly; if you're town, don't claim. Do it in PM to a person whom you trust. I you're scum, please claim publicly.

"it wasn't the towniest of things to do" ... so you are saying you were bad at appearing town? Does Beatrice actually have any thoughts, on anything? I pointed out her lack of participation yesterday and today her first post is a whole lot of .... nothing!

Sorry for scrutinizing your vote but this is flawed reasoning for 2 reasons: 1) Esther was not at risk seeing that Kenneth had already made clear that he would not vote 2) Caleb was already a guaranteed (99,9%)lynch seeing that he a) had achieved the most votes ahead of Esther so would have been convicted even if a tie had occurred and b) it was too late in the day for anyone to rally and save Caleb should something had poped up in his favor. You did seal his fate; we just have to figure out why. My initial comment that this was a relatively non-town move still stands. This being said, your behaviour as a whole does not really transpire as scummy so I'm willing to overlook this weird vote for now.

I guess you are right in that your vote switch did not matter really, but it still make me a bit uncomfortable. Your switch was both unnecessary and ill-explained; you said you would gladly vote for someone else or even do a throw away vote but yet vote for Caleb and explain it by basically saying 'might as well jump on the bandwagon'. You then proceed to say that you're likely lynching a townie and conclude by saying you would have voted for someone else

me again, see correction in bold below:

I just went through the journal again and quite frankly, I am still very comfortable with my policy vote. However since I am policy voting, I feel it should be done proprely. Since my vote was cast, Connie came in and provided valid opinions and good insight on the the game; I shall therefore Unvote: Connie Radford (Clanure). Whom to vote for now ... Oh I know! someone whos's actually contributed nothing, I mean absolutely nothing; no insight, no opinion, no justification for his vote, not even roleplaying. Yeah ... Vote: Beatrice Kingsley (Bob) This is partly a policy vote, but consider this; when Beatrice voted (without explanation), the case on Michael had some momentum and it looked like it would turn into a bandwagon really quickly. This vote looks to me like an attempt for scum to jump early on a bandwagon in the hopes of blending in.

Gathering penalty votes when you can just cast a random vote makes little sense to me. I understand your position in that I also do not feel confident enough that the candidates are scum, but you should vote.

I don't get the second part of your post, actually I don't get the whole thing! What are you trying to say? If we had a tracker you would not vote Sheridan? By my count, there is still about 27 hours to the day; as of this post, just over half of us have voted. There is however still plenty of time left!

At the time of my post, there was still a good chance that Esther would not get lynch and therfore asking her to claim was innapropriate IMO. It was something that struck me as od considering that claiming, and consequently probably loosing, a PR on day 1 would be very bad for us in the long term; your answer addresses my concerns. I'll echo the thougts made by someone else in that I am not comfortable voting for someone who may have a PR and our 2 main suspects both soft claimed. The way I see this is that the benefits of letting a possible PR live far outweight the possible harm that could come from letting a possible scumo live for one more day. With that being said I am ready to cast my vote and in my usual fashion, I shall vote for a lurker: Pops in, appears to be following what's going on, ask a bunch of questions, disapears and never follows up on her questions. Nothing much here; provides a bit of insight on the subject at hand, disapears Echos someone else's thoughts, says he will look elsewhere, tells us to keep talking and disapears. Based on these posts, I will Vote:Connie Radford (Clanure) for having provided exactly zero opinions or insight on the matters at hand. On that note, any of you 3 can now feel free to speak up, anytime now!

Prying for info are we!? Why are you so eager for Esther to claim?

Role cop is the only way to verify your claim with certainty. Really? You asked us a billion times for our opinions, you encouraged us to talk about you and even pushed some to offer opinions. Now that the spotlight is on you you're asking that we back down, how odd. Who do you propose we look at? You keep trying to shift the attention from Sheridan, do you know something we don't?

I support this theory/idea; should the role cop be willing, and if we have one, to investgate Sheridan tonight, by tomorrow we will know for sure the role/affiliation of Sheridan. Why not? Scapegoat is a role and the role cop gets a role return upon investigation; why would it not work?

Granted that my original comment on the matter could imply a lynch, it was never my intention. I think my subsequent posts made it clear that my opinion on the matter is that Sheridan may very well be town . I am not discouraging people from scrutinizing her but as others have pointed out, we have just about circled the subject now and it may be a good time to start looking elsewhere. I find that people who are constantly putting pressure on Sheridan may be doing so to ensure the focus remains on an innocent, no?

Where do/did you see me push for a lynch? I was curious to see how it would work should she die; the reason being that if we know how she would turn out when killed would disable scum's ability to use that to their advantage and enable us to assess behaviour based on supporter/detractor of her.