The Pearl - Day Two

[MagPiesRUs]

Well good morning to you all. Actually bad morning to you all. I'm a bit late to the party, had a drink to much at the furry love party last night. Quite shitty to have lost, what appears to be, our vigilante so early in this game. I also have to say sorry to Susan, looking back on my vote yesterday, it was wrong of me to base my vote on your passenger number. Unless you are scum, then I did good.

Are you still confusing me with Mary? Or did you really intend to vote for me yesterday?

And why are you saying you were wrong to vote for someone based on their passenger number when you say the exact opposite directly below?

I do have to say I agree with you. If I were hosting this I and the set numbers did relate to the persons affiliation I would try to save the game by doing the exact same thing as our host did.

So suspicion is on Mary, as it was yesterday, maybe it's time she speaks up a little.

This post is so baffling to me, I don't know what to say... Does anyone want some of my tapioca?

[Nightshroud99]

Sorry, you weren't pushing for Jordan. My mistake.

Of course, I had little focus on Mary as well, so I don't get why you're making that out otherwise, except as a distraction...

Sorry, repeatedly asking, and complaining about asking isn't 'hammering,' it's just going on about something not particularly relevant.

Mary is a so-so candidate for lynch. She's not clear. Perhaps the lynch on Jordan was to save her. Don't know. I find your behavior today worrisome, as with the push for the lynch on Jordan.

You're awfully aggressive today, simply from a little, light accusation.

What focus on Mary? I threw a vote out for her. I didn't push for her lynch whatsoever. I changed my vote for Jordon close to days end, so that dialogue could continue, and before I went to bed.

This is pretty transparent to me, that your sudden suspicions about me surfaced the moment I said you were looking scummy. Convenient timing. Put on a show, distract the crowd...

You're pretty distracting yourself, you're trying to paint Jonathon as someone he isn't, subtlety planting the idea he is acting irrationally and manic. Quite the manipulation, while remaining calm yourself.

As Jonathon has asked, but in my own words now, what makes you holier than thou?

[badboytje88]

Are you still confusing me with Mary? Or did you really intend to vote for me yesterday?

And why are you saying you were wrong to vote for someone based on their passenger number when you say the exact opposite directly below?

This post is so baffling to me, I don't know what to say... Does anyone want some of my tapioca?

Well yesterday I purely based my vote on your number. If I were to vote for anyone with a 'bad' number today I would know that yesterday three people with townie sets were killed and turned out to be townies. So voting for someone with a 'bad' number doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.

[Sandy]

So voting for someone with a 'bad' number doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.

Holy hell! The captain has twice said the numbers do not correlate with people's afflictions, and yet you continue to make it so! If the captain is lying to us, then screw him and this sick game he has made us play, but for now we have to trust his word and look at other options. In other words, just let it go, dammit!

And this is coming from a person with a police set connected to her Crew Number, mind you.

[Peanuts]

I was fine with that theory. It has around the appropiate number of scum, and it was not impossible. I don't know what you expect me to say to that, really.

Maybe it's just me, but the theory sounds, like, just wrong to me. Even if the Pirate Guy has messed up the set-up, I don't think he'd deliberately lie to us, and he had already told us these numbers'd be for a building contest. I don't think he'll stage a contest just to cover that he goofed up. Thus I think this theory distracts us from what's important. And scum would love to run with a theory that's distractive, especially since they already know wheter or not this stupid theory is right.

Well yesterday I purely based my vote on your number. If I were to vote for anyone with a 'bad' number today I would know that yesterday three people with townie sets were killed and turned out to be townies. So voting for someone with a 'bad' number doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.

I don't like voting for someone just because they have a 'bad' number. I'm not against voting for Crazy Weird Number Girl (again) or Sums-Up-But-Doesn't-Vote Girl (Do you know how hard it is to make up names when you're as unimaginative as I am? ), since they're still being suspicious, but not because their numbers are 'bad'. And, I find it fishy how people still want to go on that. It#s exactly what the scum would do; distract and look helpful.

[def]

You're pretty distracting yourself, you're trying to paint Jonathon as someone he isn't, subtlety planting the idea he is acting irrationally and manic. Quite the manipulation, while remaining calm yourself.

As Jonathon has asked, but in my own words now, what makes you holier than thou?

He repeatedly went on about Mary, no? The only thing I said wrong about Jonathan is that he was pushing for Jordan, which was a mistake from not remembering the events of yesterday correctly, which I apologised for. That seems like a mature thing to do. Did I say anything else that wasn't true? He was awfully aggressive after I pointed a finger at him, and he did keep up with the numbers theory, when experienced people know not to look at that. That's about it.

As for "what makes you holier than thou?", what the hell are you talking about? I'm doing this thing, it's called participating. Some people will post more than twice a day. For you, it may be distracting, but for others, it's half the point of playing. I'm not claiming to have perfect scumdar or that I am better than you all. Maybe one or two people You should try participating. It's one way to get better at solving things. But really, what the hell are you talking about? I answered all the people who interact with me in as clear and polite manner as possible. Not you, right now, since your comments here are inane

[Rumble Strike]

After being in my cabin all night sleeping off a bout of seasickness, I don't think I'll be partaking in any tropical drinks today, but it's good to have something to take our minds off this ordeal.

Now, I know Jonathan in particular believed me to be in league with the Thieves simply because I was weighing up a vote and didn't vote immediately after I had spoken about the two most likely candidates. I guess he'll call this summarizing too.

Anyway, without anything more concrete than that, against me, all I can do is stick to my beliefs and state yet again that I hadn't made a decision at that time, and wanted to go over things. It turns out that Jordan was in fact Town, so I am glad I did not vote for him and felt that Mary's case was a little stronger. Still not watertight, but stronger.

Crap. Looks like we were wrong about Jordan. It's a shame about Matthew and Scott, too. I was talking with someone last night, and he did mention that the way Alice has been acting seems as if she knew whether everybody was town or not, implying that she is scum. Do you have anything to say about yesterday, Alice?

Without anything specific to address here, I am not sure what to say. At what point did I give the impression I know people's allegience? Do you have anything I actually said that implied that? I can't think of anything. For what it's worth, I clearly don't know this kind of information and am as much in the dark as most of us here.

So is Alice a dithering scum or an indecisive townie? Initially, I thought the latter, but I was reminded of this famous quote from the fantasy saga 'Ragnarok Now':

Here the Norse hero 'JimButcher' dithers between lynching either of two townies. He was, of course, scum. I'm coming round to the idea that Alice is too.

I know I am not as well known as some of you, but if I am being accused not by my past actions/previous experiences, but on something that happened to somebody else when I wasn't even there, then how can I defend myself?

[Hinckley]

No, I thought Jonathan was being a little scummy, so he decided he thought I was being scummy for thinking so, and wanting to know why I wasn't going after Mary today.

I was never strongly accusing Mary in the first place on day one, so I didn't get why he kept bringing it up

I'm not sure what to think about him at all. He was way over-defensive and aggressive at my FOS, and he kept going on about the set numbers meanings even though it was not going to be a way to solve this. It's not a good sign.

Again, where do I say I suspected you just for suspecting me? I said several times it was because you dropped your suspicion of Mary. And you were accusing me with something which wasn't true, which I proved. Like it or not, that's suspicious behavior.

He repeatedly went on about Mary, no?

No. Again, point out where I "went on" about Mary. I asked you three times to answer one question, if that's what you mean. Another thing that raised suspicion about you was ignoring the simple question I asked.

Def's "shit don't stink" attitude aside, I'm still planning on voting Alice today.

After being in my cabin all night sleeping off a bout of seasickness, I don't think I'll be partaking in any tropical drinks today, but it's good to have something to take our minds off this ordeal.

Now, I know Jonathan in particular believed me to be in league with the Thieves simply because I was weighing up a vote and didn't vote immediately after I had spoken about the two most likely candidates. I guess he'll call this summarizing

Your reactions afterward and lack if promised analysis add to the suspicion. I'm busy now but I'll repost your quotes and my concerns shortly.

This reminds me that Mary also placed a vote only when prompted. I'm leaning towards Alice but Mary might still be a good lunch.

Phil, I will also post my PMs with them shortly, of the rules allow it. Busy now, posting from my phone.

[Bob]

I'm leaning towards Alice but Mary might still be a good lunch.

Oh my. I know it's Islander Day...but cannibalism?

[ADHO15]

Your reactions afterward and lack if promised analysis add to the suspicion. I'm busy now but I'll repost your quotes and my concerns shortly.

Was it not talk like this that made you suspicious of Alice in the first place? Several times, in this and other situations, have I seen you expressing a quick comment that you will return later when you have time or once you have further been over the facts/discussion. I am not saying this is scummy behaviour especially, but fail to see how you can call Alice out on it when you often do the same.

I'm leaning towards Alice but Mary might still be a good lunch.

Calm down, Johnathan! We may be dressed like it, but we are not cannibals!

EDIT: Butt out host! Stop stealing my bit!

[Bob]

EDIT: Butt out host! Stop stealing my bit!

I deserve to have fun too!

[Hinckley]

Was it not talk like this that made you suspicious of Alice in the first place? Several times, in this and other situations, have I seen you expressing a quick comment that you will return later when you have time or once you have further been over the facts/discussion. I am not saying this is scummy behaviour especially, but fail to see how you can call Alice out on it when you often do the same.

Oh, I can and will, Richard. She told us she would look into things further, but never did. She provided no further analysis, just summarizing what we already knew and no new analysis of anyone else's behavior. She just safely stuck to the two current lynch candidates. That's the difference. I do not do that. If I promise an analysis or to look at things further, I actually do so. It's a common Scum tactic to promise some investigation work and then say you came up with nothing. It's a little switch in the Scummy mind that says "I have to have an excuse for my absence while I plot with the Scummies and lurk." So her specific behaviors are adding up as Scum tells for me.

Calm down, Johnathan! We may be dressed like it, but we are not cannibals!

My phone constantly corrects lynch for some reason. I guess it's not a popular word in the English language nowadays.

[Peanuts]

Without anything specific to address here, I am not sure what to say. At what point did I give the impression I know people's allegience? Do you have anything I actually said that implied that? I can't think of anything. For what it's worth, I clearly don't know this kind of information and am as much in the dark as most of us here.

I just re-read Day One for your comments, and while I can't say I got the feel you knew about people's allegiances, I just realized you were the person who kept writing off the numbers as nothing even before we were told they were for a contest, which I found a bit suspicious yesterday. Hm, right I'm torn between Lifeguard Girl, who gives these numbers, like, way too much meaning, and you, who's quick to write them off (as well as generally flying under the radar). I consider you both good candidates for a lynch, but I'd rather vote for you right now.

So, as long as we're not allowed to vote, does anyone know any island-themed songs I could sing?

[Hinckley]

I just re-read Day One for your comments, and while I can't say I got the feel you knew about people's allegiances, I just realized you were the person who kept writing off the numbers as nothing even before we were told they were for a contest, which I found a bit suspicious yesterday. Hm, right I'm torn between Lifeguard Girl, who gives these numbers, like, way too much meaning, and you, who's quick to write them off (as well as generally flying under the radar). I consider you both good candidates for a lynch, but I'd rather vote for you right now.

Let me push my luck and ask why you're suspicious of Lifeguard girl and not me or Michael?

[Sandy]

So, as long as we're not allowed to vote, does anyone know any island-themed songs I could sing?

*Whips out an ukulele*

"No man is an island

No man stands alone!

Each man's joy is joy to me

Each man's grief is my own!"

... Oh, screw this! Can we just start lynching someone now? I'm all for taking out Alice, I have no qualms about anything said against her.

[Capt. Redblade]

Well yesterday I purely based my vote on your number. If I were to vote for anyone with a 'bad' number today I would know that yesterday three people with townie sets were killed and turned out to be townies. So voting for someone with a 'bad' number doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.

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.

[Nightshroud99]

He repeatedly went on about Mary, no? The only thing I said wrong about Jonathan is that he was pushing for Jordan, which was a mistake from not remembering the events of yesterday correctly, which I apologised for. That seems like a mature thing to do. Did I say anything else that wasn't true? He was awfully aggressive after I pointed a finger at him, and he did keep up with the numbers theory, when experienced people know not to look at that. That's about it.

As for "what makes you holier than thou?", what the hell are you talking about? I'm doing this thing, it's called participating. Some people will post more than twice a day. For you, it may be distracting, but for others, it's half the point of playing. I'm not claiming to have perfect scumdar or that I am better than you all. Maybe one or two people You should try participating. It's one way to get better at solving things. But really, what the hell are you talking about? I answered all the people who interact with me in as clear and polite manner as possible. Not you, right now, since your comments here are inane

Nothing wrong with playing aggressively, your passive aggressive behavior is pretty good.

And no, you didn't reply to everyone right away. You were not answering Jonathons' questions early on, he had to keep pestering you, and in retaliation you started pushing the angle that he is acting manic and aggressive.

Participating huh? I don't know much about that, I never post at all, everyone else makes sure to post a lot. In fact, some people like to post nothing of substance and use their status to ride out and opposition they may receive. I wonder who that is?

[Peanuts]

Let me push my luck and ask why you're suspicious of Lifeguard girl and not me or Michael?

Well, you for one have brought up the whole theory, which is not something scum would do, because it means taking responsibility for the failed lynch that comes with it. As far as I could tell, what I would do as scum is just take someone else's theory and push it, so that they are the ones to blame for the lynch. As for that Michael Guy, I actually had to look the name up, because I had no idea who that was. I checked his posts, and I gotta say, he's not really any better than Lifegard Girl. Like, at all. I wouldn't mind if he got lynched.

[Hinckley]

Mary:

I understand why you all think I am suspicious. But, when I realized it was for a building test thing, I checked. I acknowledged my mistake. I gave my defenses.

However, Diane, when accused over her set number, she went into a rant.

A rant or a defence?

Because she was dismissing something that should be discussed, even if it is far fetched.

So, do you want to vote for Diane then?

That's exactly what I want to do.

Vote: Diane (Trumpetking67)

Mary did the same thing I'm accusing Alice of. Talks about why to vote someone but then does not post the vote. Then I prompt her to vote and she does. Quickly. To avoid suspicion? Possibly. Ping.

A refresh of my suspicions against Alice:

It is interesting that we now have confirmation that the numbers are related to a building challenge later on. Bang goes my theory that they were just little 'Easter eggs'. I'll have to do some research into what this 'Star Wars' is.

As for Mary, I have known her on several occassions to make mistakes, sometimes this means she is a bad person, and sometimes not. This situation, I am not sure what it means. If she got the number wrong but didn't realise, that would be one thing, but having it linked to such an obscure set, would you not recheck it carefully? I know I would.

Likewise Jordan's admissions of forgetfulness about his name and not finding the passenger number initially. My passenger card was very easy to follow. Everyone can be forgetful at times but he's taken that to the extreme. We need people on board who are fully committed to rooting out the thieves, so bottom line, I think either would be a suitable lynch given what we have to go on so far.

Ping. Let me paraphrase what you just said: "Both candidates seems Scummy and I'll elaborate on why but not place a vote to perhaps throw off any vote analysis later."

Thank you for your scum-meh post.

I haven't had the time yet to fully check over everything I want to before casting a vote. Therefore I put up what you accurately decribe as a summary for now. I haven't had the chance to follow everything that has been said recently so I want to make sure I have not reached any inaccurate conclusions based on what we know so far.

So ping yourself!

You had time to fully summarize the situation but not to fully check it, huh? It's very common for Scum to summarize and seem helpful when three paragraphs of summarizing what other people have said doesn't really help, but gives the appearance of activity. So, have you had time now? Who are you leaning towards? What have your summaries told you?

I look forward to your very thorough analysis, once you've had time to "fully check" everything.

Like Babs said, there's not a great deal to go with on Day One, but I do want to go over exactly what happened so I can vote with a clear conscience that I have fully appraised the facts. I am really looking to see which errors are more telling at the time they occurred. If that makes me look suspicious, or like I'm summarizing, or being wishy-washy, then so be it.

Still not voting? Where's that analysis? What exactly about me pinged you back? Just me accusing you? Scum-meeeh.

Well despite casting suspicion on myself just for wanting to vote with all the facts to hand (when I literally couldn't earlier. I won't be apologising for wanting to be thorough, anyway), this is how I see it:

I am looking at my passenger card right now, and it really is hard to mistake a 4-digit number like that. The font is clear and plenty big enough to read. And as I said before, on getting a weird set the first time, wouldn't it have been in her best interests to recheck it then? It would still be suspicious but the timing then, and not just after the building contest announcement wouldn't have been a double hit on her credibility.

Then we have First Officer Bill claiming not to have a number at all, as well as Jordan. Again, very hard to miss, in my opinion. And Jordan not recognising his own name. I know we have been in similar situations before - my time in Japan I had a lot of similar looking names thrown at me, but you should really have your wits about you in a situation like this.

In conclusion I feel my vote is best going to Mary, but the other two should be watched very carefully.

Vote: Mary (TheBoyWonder)

And no, Jonathan, I was not seriously pinging you back. It was just a retort. I don't find you ping-worthy at this time.

I'm sorry I didn't find anything extraordinary out with my analysis. It's Day One and we don't have a lot to go on, as everyone knows. But I didn't want to place my vote until I'd done that, chance to unvote later or not. I'm being thorough here, it's what the situation deserves. I know people don't really know me here, but this is how I am doing things.

The concern is still the same. Mostly, in reading it back and looking carefully at it, Alice has told us in detail why she thinks one is Scum over the other. Overly justifying a vote on a Townie? We all knew, by this point, the case against each. Why has Alice gone through so many steps to explain why she was choosing one over the other? Maybe it's because I was hounding her about the summarizing post and asking for analysis. In that case, this wouldn't be Scummy so much as just her way of processing events. It could also be the Scum-perspective of needing to justify a vote in case the vote pattern gives her away later. Was she seeking advice on if she should vote for her Scum-mate Mary or was she trying to discern which Townie to vote for? Who knows? If she is Scum, we could speculate all day as to what she was actually thinking. This is not a very solid case when we look at it. She did do everything she said and even found a new suspicion in Bill. Still, the original "Ping" from me stands. It's a typical Scum-tell and perhaps she just did a valiant job trying to cover her tracks afterwards.

And for fun, let's look at Barbara's behavior. And yes, Barbara, I did find you suspicious before you voiced your suspicions about me this morning. I thought you were too nice on Day One. Not nearly condescending enough for your usual smug self. You've done better at it today though. Regardless of attitude, let's take a look at some of the things Barbara said yesterday:

We have a dozen hours, plenty of time to change. I will be sleeping at the day's end, though.

Do you think we should change or do you agree we have the most to learn from Mary's lynch?

I don't think we'll learn anything from any of them until they're all dead, and even then, only if one is scum. We can only learn so much from bandwagons, and usually it's that people can be sheep.

It seems to me we could learn things from voting patterns when people vote out a Townie. Yet yesterday there were two bandwagons, seemingly. You started one and I started one. Interesting, isn't it? A vote was started towards Mary and snowballed. Then I voted for Jordan and a bunch of people jumped on that one, instead. That's interesting votes to be analyzed already, don't you think?

There's certainly enough time to solidify a lynch on one or the other of them, since right now, nobody will be lynched...

Going to bed soon... To change votes or not change votes. I'm not getting a particularly scummy read on Jordan, though he did over-react. That's been his unpleasant thing, I guess. We all have our demons.

Unless any passionate defenses come up in the next couple of hours, I'll switch up my vote before I pass out and put the nail in Jordan's coiffy coffin.

I'm not really sure if the case is stronger against Alice than it is against Jordan, so I'll keep my vote where it is.

Babs, you sure do sleep at funny times. Why not wait until the night to sleep? Unless you're going to be up at night?

Yes, I sleep when night comes. Are you implying it is 'funny' to sleep at night? It's very dark where I am. That means it's night.

And the case is Mary vs Jordan. A vote for Alice at this point would be blatantly scummy since it's the same as throwing away your vote (which is why voting should always be mandatory... it forces people to somewhat play).

Let's vote for Timmy tomorrow.

Interestingly, after saying it's plenty of time to turn a lynch around, he actually threatens Timmy with a lynch just for suggesting voting for Alice. Although, a last minute vote change would've been hard yesterday, it wouldn't be impossible and Alice was as good a candidate as Jordan or Mary. And since Barbara found it necessary to actually apologize to Jordan for voting (bold move for the person you're hammering. So sure he was Town?) especially considering how the offers to put the vote back on Mary were ignored, wouldn't a third viable candidate have been welcome? Anyone who completely dismisses a candidate with no reason is worthy of some suspicion.

I'm sure Barbara will insult my intelligence for daring to question her, but that's OK with me. This is what is see in reading back over Day One.

I'm still a bit uneasy about Mary, personally.

Uneasy about her affiliation or uneasy to vote her?

[Peanuts]

Well, now that Stupid Theory Guy has called my attention to that Michael Guy (seriously, no wonder I didn't notice him, he's so characterless; no name for you, Michael Guy ), I've been remembering of the first day, when he said:

Would it be terribly shallow and unwise to base the day one vote on the set numbers? Because so far I really don't like the sound of Skeleton Tower or Vampyre Castle...

...followed by...

At somewhat the start of this day, I said the following:

Would it be terribly shallow and unwise to base the day one vote on the set numbers? Because so far I really don't like the sound of Skeleton Tower or Vampyre Castle...

Which is terribly shallow and no game host in his proper state of mind would do something so obvious as giving the members of team scum ‘evil’ looking/sounding LEGO set numbers.

[...]

...and today...

Well yesterday I purely based my vote on your number. If I were to vote for anyone with a 'bad' number today I would know that yesterday three people with townie sets were killed and turned out to be townies. So voting for someone with a 'bad' number doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.

So, either he completely changed his mind within few hours, or the first statement was meant to be some kind of trap for the scum. That's surprising, because he's not been very aggressive so far (I can't even come up with a name for him, so I'll have to learn his real one), and setting traps is usually more a thing aggressive players do. Also, he never really followed it up with more than two sentences. Which, by itself, is strange, but not necessarily scummy. What's really interesting is how he changed his opinion again, today, after Stupid Theory Guy and Lifeguard Girl promoted this theory.

Yep, you're definitely added to my list of suspicious people, and you've even surpassed Lifeguard Girl, who's just gone with Stupid Theory Guy's stupid theory.

[TrumpetKing]

Without anything specific to address here, I am not sure what to say. At what point did I give the impression I know people's allegience? Do you have anything I actually said that implied that? I can't think of anything. For what it's worth, I clearly don't know this kind of information and am as much in the dark as most of us here.

You are so dumm, cuz you are rilly dumm, fo' rill!

It's been said many times that you are a suspect for your unwillingness to vote for both suspects at first yesterday. At this point, I am more than willing to vote for you right now. I hope you get lynched, then attacked by some idiot in the projects.

So dumm, so dumm

[CMP]

Well, thanks for that summary of your suspicion against Alice. I've been on the other side of such an accusation before, and the majority of the time it was because I was scum. That's enough to convince me to place a vote for her.

As for the business with Barbara, she mentioned earlier today she had no opinion on Alice, it's possible if she had the same thoughts yesterday, she simply didn't bother to consider her a real suspect. At the same time, I don't think it's really fair for her to call out Jonathan on his analysis of the numbers thing. I share her opinion that, yeah, it's probably not exactly constructive, but much like her neutrality towards Alice's case, I feel she's just ignoring anything that doesn't pop out as obviously scummy to her.

Not exactly a decisive opinion on them, but that's simply because neither of them seem like suspects to me at all, I'm just voicing my thoughts on them both. My vote's still on Alice.

[Hinckley]

*jumps*

Oh, you startled me, sir! You must be Pierre. You haven't said much, Pierre. You're suspiciously quiet, Pierre. How's it going, Pierre?

Well, thanks for that summary of your suspicion against Alice. I've been on the other side of such an accusation before, and the majority of the time it was because I was scum. That's enough to convince me to place a vote for her.

As for the business with Barbara, she mentioned earlier today she had no opinion on Alice, it's possible if she had the same thoughts yesterday, she simply didn't bother to consider her a real suspect. At the same time, I don't think it's really fair for her to call out Jonathan on his analysis of the numbers thing. I share her opinion that, yeah, it's probably not exactly constructive, but much like her neutrality towards Alice's case, I feel she's just ignoring anything that doesn't pop out as obviously scummy to her.

Not exactly a decisive opinion on them, but that's simply because neither of them seem like suspects to me at all, I'm just voicing my thoughts on them both. My vote's still on Alice.

*jumps*

Oh, you startled me, sir! You must be Pierre. You haven't said much, Pierre. You're suspiciously quiet, Pierre. How's it going, Pierre?

We cross-posted.

[Bob]

You may now vote.

With 21 players, it takes 11 players to make a lynch.

[Hinckley]

It turns out that Jordan was in fact Town, so I am glad I did not vote for him and felt that Mary's case was a little stronger. Still not watertight, but stronger.

Yes, very lucky for you to not have voted for a Townie. And what do you think of Mary today?