The Pearl - Day Two

Are the Scum valiantly trying to play off the fact that God foolishly designed this game for our numbers to give away our affiliation and it blew up in his face and was uncovered by Day Two? :sceptic: Pearl 2.0? :look:

Is this our Scum team and serial killer?

Alice (Passenger) - Played by Rumble Strike - 9491 Geonosian Cannon

Barbara (Passenger) - Played by Def - Undisclosed

Betty (Passenger) - Played by Waterbrick Down - 5980 Squidman's Pitstop

Bill (First Officer) - Played by Capt. Redblade - 3365 Space Moon Buggy

Diane (Passenger) - Played by TrumpetKing67 - 9468 Vampyre Castle

George (Passenger) - Played by The Legonater - 7093 Skeleton Tower

Timothy (Passenger) - Played by Palathadric - 7627 Temple of the Crystal Skull

Scubacarrot · February 16, 2013

What about Mary, Thomas?

And Bill´s is a town set, I believe.

We might as well test this theory.

**Hinckley** · February 16, 2013

I meant to leave Mary on there. Thomas, I thought had a Town set because it started with the word "Fire". I suppose a full third of us being Scum isn't logical...

We don't know what def's set is...or Rufus for that matter.

Whoever they are. We don't know Phil or Barbara's sets either.

I'm posting a little too hastily. Sorry this is sloppy.

7 Scum and a serial killer are still possible.

The Legonater · February 16, 2013

I should like to see this theory cleared as soon as possible, if only to prove my own innocence. Mary would see to be a prime suspect for this, but if she is as scummy as she seems then... :wacko:

If need be, I would present myself up for this test, if only to help the town. I hope it doesn't come to that, though.

TrumpetKing · February 16, 2013

I still don't understand why some people think that Bob would make this game so easy just by using the set numbers. Obviously if I was scum, yesterday I would have waited until later to see the common theme in the sets. Don't you think if the scum team was based off of numbers that the more experienced scum members would have warned the less experienced to give a different number, one that seemed less scummy? It just doesn't make sense to me. Bob wouldn't give the scum numbers just to quickly screw them and get them lynched without defense. I know that I'm town and I think it is unfair for other townies to be lynched solely by their numbers. It just doesn't seem to click with me, frankly. Now, I don't think it is unreasonable that a few of the scum were given "bad" numbers, though. And sorry if this sounds aggressive.

Scubacarrot · February 16, 2013

I still don't understand why some people think that Bob would make this game so easy just by using the set numbers. Obviously if I was scum, yesterday I would have waited until later to see the common theme in the sets. Don't you think if the scum team was based off of numbers that the more experienced scum members would have warned the less experienced to give a different number, one that seemed less scummy? It just doesn't make sense to me. Bob wouldn't give the scum numbers just to quickly screw them and get them lynched without defense. I know that I'm town and I think it is unfair for other townies to be lynched solely by their numbers. It just doesn't seem to click with me, frankly. Now, I don't think it is unreasonable that a few of the scum were given "bad" numbers, though. And sorry if this sounds aggressive.

You´re assuming Bob thinks like us. And it does sound very defensive.

TrumpetKing · February 16, 2013

I'm on the same boat as my husband. In order to prove my innocence, i am also willing to be lynched if it comes to it. I'd rather not, obviously, we are on a cruise, but I know that these numbers do not have to do with affiliation, but if we have to prove that, then so be it.

You´re assuming Bob thinks like us. And it does sound very defensive.

I guess I am assuming that, but don't you think Bob would have thought about the correlation between numbers and affiliation?

**Hinckley** · February 16, 2013

I guess I am assuming that, but don't you think Bob would have thought about the correlation between numbers and affiliation?

It's possible that he thought we wouldn't notice so soon. It's a common mistake when trying to add a clever twist. Sometimes people figure things out faster than a host realizes they will. It's hard to control your players and you shouldn't try. It's possible Bob tried this to be clever and we figured it out immediately.

Scubacarrot · February 16, 2013

If he hadn´t thought about it there would be no correlation.

Captain Genaro · February 16, 2013

snip

This list has two issues (neither of which are your fault), Barbara and Phil. They have never given us a number so it's hard for us to create theories since their numbers be anything. Also, why did you pick Barbara to be scum but not Phil? I would be willing to test your theory on Mary or Alice if nothing else comes up today.

Another possible correlation could be space sets=scum and non-space sets=innocent? This theory would leave us with 6 scum, include both Alice and Mary (who seem to have gotten the most suspicion), and would be less obvious than town sets=town, scary=scum.

On to the death of Adam. Is it possible that Adam was carrying around the bat because he loves baseball and not because his role required one? Considering what happened in Excalibur, I don't think that Bob would try to hide clues in the pictures (besides, look at rule #10).

Does anyone know what's going on with the daily theme? Granted it might be a little early on in the game, isn't it odd that we are told of the theme and then nothing comes of it?

Bob · February 16, 2013

Alright, Mod Note:

There is no correlation between set numbers and affiliations.

ADHO15 · February 16, 2013

Alright, Mod Note:

There is no correlation between set numbers and affiliations.

Okay... that puts an end to that discussion!

In that case, I do not see a good reason why Mary should not be lynched today after all of the suspicion that was cast upon her yesterday and then not acted on.

Ferrik · February 16, 2013

Losing two innocents in one day, is quite a loss.

But on the bright side these tropical drinks are just amazing. :sweet: I could drink them all day but we must find the thieves.

I really don't think that the innocents were all from Town/City sets as there are way too many scum, and that would just be too easy.

**Hinckley** · February 17, 2013

This list has two issues (neither of which are your fault), Barbara and Phil. They have never given us a number so it's hard for us to create theories since their numbers be anything. Also, why did you pick Barbara to be scum but not Phil? I would be willing to test your theory on Mary or Alice if nothing else comes up today.

I already mentioned that Phil didn't claim his either. I simply missed Phil in the lower half of the alphabet as I was looking for the evil sets. Just a simple mistake. It is intriguing that the non-Town sets all include villains.

Alright, Mod Note:

There is no correlation between set numbers and affiliations.

Can't you just be entertained by your players wildly speculating? :hmpf: Sheesh. Anyway, I think this is what God would tell us if he had been caught off guard by the concept being figured out so quickly, but I suppose I can digress...for now.

I agree Mary could be a good vote for the day, though I still like the idea of lynching Alice. I'd like to hear from Barbara as to why her suspicion has so suddenly left Mary and focused on me for apparently no solid reason.

Losing two innocents in one day, is quite a loss.

Don't look now, genius, but it was three innocents. :hmpf:

TrumpetKing · February 17, 2013

Well, that settles it. I'm still not looking forward to the building contest, though. So, I feel like Alice, Barbara, and Betty are all good lynch options for today, but I haven't seen a whole lot going against Barbara. She has had a few scummy moments, though, according to Jonathan. I'll take another look. I see Betty and Alice as better options today, as mist of yesterday's discussions was centered around them.

Sorry, I meant Mary, not Betty. :blush:

**def** · February 17, 2013

Well, that settles it. I'm still not looking forward to the building contest, though. So, I feel like Alice, Barbara, and Betty are all good lynch options for today, but I haven't seen a whole lot going against Barbara. She has had a few scummy moments, though, according to Jonathan. I'll take another look. I see Betty and Alice as better options today, as mist of yesterday's discussions was centered around them.

Sorry, I meant Mary, not Betty.

Sorry, why am I a candidate? Because I said Jonathan was a candidate :wacko: That's pretty ridiculous. Jonathan really wanted to push this 'set number = affiliation' business when any sensible person knows that would only be in a broken game... Luckily the head honcho stepped in and put an end to it (even though it is a total host faux-pas, since scum need to be able to disinform players with bogus theories). Just another reason to see Jonathan being actually scummy, as opposed to his finger-pointing at me which is simply based on self-preservation. He was trying to lead you all down a dead-end.

Peanuts · February 17, 2013

Wow, I was, like, really sure Jordan would be scum. That's definitely not a surprise I like. And hearing that our vig is gone is pretty damn shocking, too.

Today, I'm somewhat sure Jonathan is scum. No investigation, just a strong scummy vibe going off there. Does anyone else feel it?

Actually, no. At least not by the time you asked that...

We missed one of the most important clues. Three dead Townies. What set numbers did they have?

[...]

All three Town sets. And no building challenge to speak of yet... Hmmmmmm....

So...we were told, that these were for a building contest, yet you were implying that they might not be, and that there is a correlation between numbers and roles, which would be considered a bastard set-up, right until God clarified they were not?

The worst news of all of this is that the Engine Room looks exactly like the Engine Room in Excalibur.

That is certainly a shitty start. Hatchet man is a serial killer, neck snapper is the Scum, Matthew was our vigilante. Was he blocked and killed? I'm disappointed that his action didn't go through, if he is in fact the serial killer. A baseball bat could mean blocker as well. If he was the vigilante, was he blocked and killed? That would have to mean he blabbed to the wrong person on Day One.

Why would the SK kill Confused Engineer Guy? It's not like he was, like, totally silent, which is the kidn of person I'd kill, if I was an SK. And you seem to know who the vig was, and that he's dead.

Of course, I don't know why you would tell us if you were scum, which speaks in your favor.

Are the Scum valiantly trying to play off the fact that God foolishly designed this game for our numbers to give away our affiliation and it blew up in his face and was uncovered by Day Two? Pearl 2.0?

Is this our Scum team and serial killer?

Yeah, you kept talking about this correlation, and to me, it just seems to be a distraction. This looks like scummy behavior to me, but I still can't explain why you would tell us you knew who the vig was. So maybe I shouldn't look at you...

What about Mary, Thomas?

And Bill´s is a town set, I believe.

We might as well test this theory.

If he hadn´t thought about it there would be no correlation.

...but at the person who was completey fine with that 'theory'. Yeah, I'm highly suspicious of you now. You didn't make it up, but you endorsed it, which is totally, like, scummy behavior.

**Hinckley** · February 17, 2013

Sorry, why am I a candidate? Because I said Jonathan was a candidate That's pretty ridiculous. Jonathan really wanted to push this 'set number = affiliation' business when any sensible person knows that would only be in a broken game... Luckily the head honcho stepped in and put an end to it (even though it is a total host faux-pas, since scum need to be able to disinform players with bogus theories). Just another reason to see Jonathan being actually scummy, as opposed to his finger-pointing at me which is simply based on self-preservation. He was trying to lead you all down a dead-end.

And you know this host may actually commit such a faux-pas, so it's not that far-fetched and worth exploring. So, third time's the charm, what happened to your suspicion of Mary? You say you didn't want to vote for Jordan and you started the vote yesterday on Mary, so what happened?

Wow, I was, like, really sure Jordan would be scum. That's definitely not a surprise I like. And hearing that our vig is gone is pretty damn shocking, too.

Actually, no. At least not by the time you asked that...

So...we were told, that these were for a building contest, yet you were implying that they might not be, and that there is a correlation between numbers and roles, which would be considered a bastard set-up, right until God clarified they were not?

Why would the SK kill Confused Engineer Guy? It's not like he was, like, totally silent, which is the kidn of person I'd kill, if I was an SK. And you seem to know who the vig was, and that he's dead.

Of course, I don't know why you would tell us if you were scum, which speaks in your favor.

Yeah, you kept talking about this correlation, and to me, it just seems to be a distraction. This looks like scummy behavior to me, but I still can't explain why you would tell us you knew who the vig was. So maybe I shouldn't look at you...

...but at the person who was completey fine with that 'theory'. Yeah, I'm highly suspicious of you now. You didn't make it up, but you endorsed it, which is totally, like, scummy behavior.

Where did I say I knew who the vig was?

And yes, I do believe Bob may have actually set the game up for the set numbers to be clues to affiliation. I've even said after he "cleared it up" that it's something a host would do if they tried to add something they thought was clever and it backfired on them. Bob claiming they have nothing to do with each other still doesn't convince me. Looking at the ratio of Town:other sets and the fact that we have three dead Townies who all had Town sets... it's more than worth discussing and exploring. Especially considering the host shouldn't have intervened at all to explain the meaning of the set numbers.

TrumpetKing · February 17, 2013

Sorry, why am I a candidate? Because I said Jonathan was a candidate That's pretty ridiculous. Jonathan really wanted to push this 'set number = affiliation' business when any sensible person knows that would only be in a broken game... Luckily the head honcho stepped in and put an end to it (even though it is a total host faux-pas, since scum need to be able to disinform players with bogus theories). Just another reason to see Jonathan being actually scummy, as opposed to his finger-pointing at me which is simply based on self-preservation. He was trying to lead you all down a dead-end.

Well, I did say that you were scummy, according to Jonathan. I then said I'd take a look into yesterday. And I am slowly starting to think that Jonathan is appearing scummy, now that Bristol has mentioned it. I'm not totally convinced on Jonathan, however. The thing I find scummy about him is that he somehow knew that Matthew was our vigilante, then mentioned that he may have blabbed to the wrong person. Perhaps Jonathan was the wrong person? I'm not entirely sure, but that could always be a possibility, mixed with Bristol's speech...

**MagPiesRUs** · February 17, 2013

I already mentioned that Phil didn't claim his either. I simply missed Phil in the lower half of the alphabet as I was looking for the evil sets. Just a simple mistake. It is intriguing that the non-Town sets all include villains.

Matthew's set also came with a villain.

Anyway, I think this is what God would tell us if he had been caught off guard by the concept being figured out so quickly, but I suppose I can digress...for now.

But it's also what God would tell us if the idea was completely wrong...

I don't know why you're pushing this idea so hard. It's ridiculous to assume that God would make the game so easy for us. It's already been confirmed that the set numbers will be used for a building contest, I doubt there's going to be a hidden meaning in there.

I'll answer right to it. I don't feel it and I'm not Scum.

So you're a neutral then, right?

**Hinckley** · February 17, 2013

Well, I did say that you were scummy, according to Jonathan. I then said I'd take a look into yesterday. And I am slowly starting to think that Jonathan is appearing scummy, now that Bristol has mentioned it. I'm not totally convinced on Jonathan, however. The thing I find scummy about him is that he somehow knew that Matthew was our vigilante, then mentioned that he may have blabbed to the wrong person. Perhaps Jonathan was the wrong person? I'm not entirely sure, but that could always be a possibility, mixed with Bristol's speech...

:hmpf:

Once again, I'm basing my assumption that he was the vig on the fact that he was carrying a bat and talking about his Night Action. I didn't talk to Matthew behind the scenes at all and he, therefore, did not tell me that he was the vig and I do not know that for sure, as I've already stated several times.

But it's also what God would tell us if the idea was completely wrong...

True. I guess that just goes to show my faith in God...

So you're a neutral then, right?

No. I'm Town.

Peanuts · February 17, 2013

Once again, I'm basing my assumption that he was the vig on the fact that he was carrying a bat and talking about his Night Action. I didn't talk to Matthew behind the scenes at all and he, therefore, did not tell me that he was the vig and I do not know that for sure, as I've already stated several times.

Okay, I hadn't understood that, sorry.

Still, you'd imply that the Pirate Guy has been deliberately lying to us, which a host never should do. Well, he shouldn't have interfered with your stupid theory, either, I admit that. But I trust him to not flat-out lie to us.

Well, I did say that you were scummy, according to Jonathan. I then said I'd take a look into yesterday. And I am slowly starting to think that Jonathan is appearing scummy, now that Bristol has mentioned it. I'm not totally convinced on Jonathan, however. The thing I find scummy about him is that he somehow knew that Matthew was our vigilante, then mentioned that he may have blabbed to the wrong person. Perhaps Jonathan was the wrong person? I'm not entirely sure, but that could always be a possibility, mixed with Bristol's speech...

Actually, sorry if that came out wrong, but what I was trying to say, was, that while Stupid Theory Guy's theory was nothing but distracting and therefore something a scum member would say, what they would say even more is just take his theory and run with it, just as Lifeguard Girl did. Therefore, I consider her a far better suspect.

**def** · February 17, 2013

And you know this host may actually commit such a faux-pas, so it's not that far-fetched and worth exploring. So, third time's the charm, what happened to your suspicion of Mary? You say you didn't want to vote for Jordan and you started the vote yesterday on Mary, so what happened?

I don't know. I threw out a day one vote early. It wasn't a particularly deep consideration. It's called day one. Maybe you've heard of it... Wait, you totally have, and you hammering at that point is scummy, since everybody knows the first vote isn't a big thing.

Well, I did say that you were scummy, according to Jonathan. I then said I'd take a look into yesterday. And I am slowly starting to think that Jonathan is appearing scummy, now that Bristol has mentioned it. I'm not totally convinced on Jonathan, however. The thing I find scummy about him is that he somehow knew that Matthew was our vigilante, then mentioned that he may have blabbed to the wrong person. Perhaps Jonathan was the wrong person? I'm not entirely sure, but that could always be a possibility, mixed with Bristol's speech...

No, you said I was up for lynching. You said I was scummy according to Jonathan. If you want to lynch me, you need to take credit :sadnew:

-----

Nevermind that, I didn't read that well enough.

**Hinckley** · February 17, 2013

I don't know. I threw out a day one vote early. It wasn't a particularly deep consideration. It's called day one. Maybe you've heard of it... Wait, you totally have, and you hammering at that point is scummy, since everybody knows the first vote isn't a big thing.

How's the view from your tunnel there? Hammering? I only mentioned it three times because you ignored it the first two times. :hmpf:

Still, I'll hit it with my Scummy hammer again, what exactly has Mary done to draw whatever suspicions you had off of her? Yes, day one vote is sometimes random, but you're not likely to base a vote on nothing. You're deeply analytical. Are you now saying you just drew a name out of a hat for Day One?

Still, you'd imply that the Pirate Guy has been deliberately lying to us, which a host never should do.

The operative word there is "should". Still, you have more faith in Pirate Guy than I do. No offense, Pirate Guy. I should partake in that digressing I was talking about earlier.

Actually, sorry if that came out wrong, but what I was trying to say, was, that while Stupid Theory Guy's theory was nothing but distracting and therefore something a scum member would say, what they would say even more is just take his theory and run with it, just as Lifeguard Girl did. Therefore, I consider her a far better suspect.

:laugh: Yay, I have a name.

Peanuts · February 17, 2013

Yay, I have a name.

:blush: Yeah, it's not very good. You're, like, totally not memorable, like, at all. :grin:

The Pearl - Day Two

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements