Party Lines Mafia - Day One: Lame Ducks

[def]

Well rats! Who slipped a roofie in my drink?! I missed electing the Speaker of the Legislature. I am not so sure I am happy with the outcome. Siegfried was a bit too verbal about being vanilla for my liking. But we´ll see how this one works out.

Haven't you been 100% wrong every time you've ever accused me? Isn't it about time to take whatever vibe you get off of me and go with the opposite? Just a suggestion

[Scaevola]

I'd like to hear a little more from Reps, Benedict, Figurelli, and Laughlin. Benedict has yet to speak, and I'm not satisfied with the voting justifications of the latter, albeit their was a paltry amount of information to found your vote on.

[jluck]

Well, for better or for worse, we have Siegfried as our speaker, this could be the best or worse decision of the game. Moving on now, my question is, do we suspect that at least 2 scum voted together to attempt electing one of their own or did they avoid a power play this early on?

[Scaevola]

Well, for better or for worse, we have Siegfried as our speaker, this could be the best or worse decision of the game. Moving on now, my question is, do we suspect that at least 2 scum voted together to attempt electing one of their own or did they avoid a power play this early on?

If that's the case the Dixon, Nottingham, and Matthews' voters should be the one's to investigate. That makes Dixon, Callaghan, Laughlin, Karchevsky, Nottingham, myself, Figurelli, Matthews, and Teichman suspect in this regard. Not a lot to draw from, but I'd conjecture there's some scum here.

[JackJonespaw]

Well, for better or for worse, we have Siegfried as our speaker, this could be the best or worse decision of the game. Moving on now, my question is, do we suspect that at least 2 scum voted together to attempt electing one of their own or did they avoid a power play this early on?

This is exactly the question that I'm wondering.

If they elect their own as speaker, then they already, very early on, have a scum in a power position.

But, of course, they might also suspect that we loyals would suspect them, so they would avoid making a scum speaker.

If that's the case the Dixon, Nottingham, and Matthews' voters should be the one's to investigate.

Right, those nominations with +3 votes (here assuming that 1 vote is the nominee's own) should not be taken without suspicion.

[mostlytechnic]

Personally, I'd be surprised if the scum went for the leader position on day 1. With the votes so widely scattered, it'd be too hard to hide. If Dixon or Nottingham are scum, I'd be surprised if there was more than 1 scum (other than themselves) in the vote for them.

[Bob]

My apologies for not voting earlier, I'm afraid I was a bit tied up with issues out of my control. But none of that matters anymore, because the new Speaker has been decided upon. I'd like to know, the people who did vote for Siegfried, why did you do so? The reasons that I saw ranged from "he seems like a good guy" to "I've worked with him before." Do I detect some metagaming already? Did you vote for Siegfried simply because he voted for himself and started babbling on like he was the loyalist of the loyalists?

I likely would have voted for myself, since it's too early to place your trust into someone. Honestly, I think everyone at this point is a suspect. Scum might have voted for Siegfried based on his record of gunning for scum. The scum might have voted for themselves, which makes the Carol vote very suspicious to me. Sinclair and Stanley, tell me, why did you vote for Carol, besides not trusting Siegfried?

This speaker vote is very telling. I suggest we don't ignore it and that we look back upon it later on.

[badboytje88]

Haven't you been 100% wrong every time you've ever accused me? Isn't it about time to take whatever vibe you get off of me and go with the opposite? Just a suggestion

I know right! I never read you correctly

Maybe I should start trusting you more my esteemed colleague.

[Walter Kovacs]

Woohoo! Thank you, this is truly democracy in action. The will of the people will not, no, it can not be fettered.

People who voted for themselves in a blatant act of copycattery? I suspect you. People who voted for me in an act of sucking up to me? I suspect you. People who voted for Carol for no reason? I suspect you. And those who couldn't be bothered to vote thereby muddying the voting record? I suspect you as well.

Clearly, this is a precarious position we are in. I will do my best.

So... everybody is still suspect in your eyes?

All joking aside, that's how it should be. For now.

My apologies for not voting earlier, I'm afraid I was a bit tied up with issues out of my control. But none of that matters anymore, because the new Speaker has been decided upon. I'd like to know, the people who did vote for Siegfried, why did you do so? The reasons that I saw ranged from "he seems like a good guy" to "I've worked with him before." Do I detect some metagaming already? Did you vote for Siegfried simply because he voted for himself and started babbling on like he was the loyalist of the loyalists?

I likely would have voted for myself, since it's too early to place your trust into someone. Honestly, I think everyone at this point is a suspect. Scum might have voted for Siegfried based on his record of gunning for scum. The scum might have voted for themselves, which makes the Carol vote very suspicious to me. Sinclair and Stanley, tell me, why did you vote for Carol, besides not trusting Siegfried?

This speaker vote is very telling. I suggest we don't ignore it and that we look back upon it later on.

I'll answer for my vote for Siegfried. I find it hard to believe that an Octanite would put himself in the spotlight as early as Mr Dixon did. And waiting for any evidence, concrete or circumstantial, is like..., well, it's like I've always said about wishes: wish in one hand and shit in the other, and just see which fills up first.

I don't trust Siegfried any more than I trust any of you. But we have to find the Octanites somehow, and everyone voting for themselves was not the way to accomplish that. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. Now it's time to get down to business and find those that Octan has cajoled.

To that end, while there are two individuals that struck me as more likely Octan than others. One was Carol Nottingham, based on the timing of her nomination. The other is Gerald Hatley, for his firm refusal to vote for anyone, even though it is probably better to vote. If the two, I'd like to hear more on Gerald's reasoning. So...

Vote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath)

[Adam]

It seems we have our Speaker! That's groovy. Siegfried (Speedy), has Justice Montgomery given you any information as to what your new responsibilities are?

[Scaevola]

My apologies for not voting earlier, I'm afraid I was a bit tied up with issues out of my control. But none of that matters anymore, because the new Speaker has been decided upon. I'd like to know, the people who did vote for Siegfried, why did you do so? The reasons that I saw ranged from "he seems like a good guy" to "I've worked with him before." Do I detect some metagaming already? Did you vote for Siegfried simply because he voted for himself and started babbling on like he was the loyalist of the loyalists?

I likely would have voted for myself, since it's too early to place your trust into someone. Honestly, I think everyone at this point is a suspect. Scum might have voted for Siegfried based on his record of gunning for scum. The scum might have voted for themselves, which makes the Carol vote very suspicious to me. Sinclair and Stanley, tell me, why did you vote for Carol, besides not trusting Siegfried?

This speaker vote is very telling. I suggest we don't ignore it and that we look back upon it later on.

Rep. Benedict, from antecedent legislative experience, I've concluded it would be easier to uncover an ulterior motive of Rep. Nottingham than Rep. Dixon. Furthermore, Carol was responsive and upfront regarding the questions posed to her. As for the other candidates, I'm more familiar with Rep. Nottingham's mannerisms then I am of theirs.

[def]

Well, for better or for worse, we have Siegfried as our speaker, this could be the best or worse decision of the game. Moving on now, my question is, do we suspect that at least 2 scum voted together to attempt electing one of their own or did they avoid a power play this early on?

No, scum would not vote their own in, I don't think, unless they were all very stupid. It's all a big game of WIFOM at this point though.

It seems we have our Speaker! That's groovy. Siegfried (Speedy), has Justice Montgomery given you any information as to what your new responsibilities are?

As suspected, it is simply a deciding vote. If there's a tie, I will be the deciding vote. The difference between scum and town in the role is small: scum will always vote to save the scum/take out the person they like less. Town will make a call, but is stuck with a hunch.

It isn't really a power role until the numbers get really low, and a scum in the position can push the vote over the edge for them.

[Yzalirk]

To that end, while there are two individuals that struck me as more likely Octan than others. One was Carol Nottingham, based on the timing of her nomination. The other is Gerald Hatley, for his firm refusal to vote for anyone, even though it is probably better to vote. If the two, I'd like to hear more on Gerald's reasoning. So...

Vote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath)

You believe I'm with Octan simply because I abstain a vote? Who's to say you're not with Octan? I mean, you are pretty quick to point the figure at me with no evidence. I don't want any Octan supporters as a speaker and it's only Day One so relax big guy... or girl. I don't want to contribute to having an Octan supporter as speaker since I'm not sure who is who just yet, that's all.

But seriously though, I can play ball too.

Vote: Winnifred Karchevsky (Walter Kovacs)

[Calanon]

No, scum would not vote their own in, I don't think, unless they were all very stupid. It's all a big game of WIFOM at this point though.

As suspected, it is simply a deciding vote. If there's a tie, I will be the deciding vote. The difference between scum and town in the role is small: scum will always vote to save the scum/take out the person they like less. Town will make a call, but is stuck with a hunch.

It isn't really a power role until the numbers get really low, and a scum in the position can push the vote over the edge for them.

If that really is all it is, then that is fair. However, I'm aware that in the past you've had some tricks up your sleeve.

On one hand, I trust you more than the others. On the other, significantly less than the others.

I suggest we go with Siegfried being a Loyal Representative for now, but we should be cautious.

[Yzalirk]

As suspected, it is simply a deciding vote. If there's a tie, I will be the deciding vote. The difference between scum and town in the role is small: scum will always vote to save the scum/take out the person they like less. Town will make a call, but is stuck with a hunch.

It isn't really a power role until the numbers get really low, and a scum in the position can push the vote over the edge for them.

So what you are saying is that we should be careful who we vote for as speaker later down the line? If what you are saying is true, I'll trust you on it and perhaps I'll cast my vote in after all.

[jluck]

As suspected, it is simply a deciding vote. If there's a tie, I will be the deciding vote. The difference between scum and town in the role is small: scum will always vote to save the scum/take out the person they like less. Town will make a call, but is stuck with a hunch.

It isn't really a power role until the numbers get really low, and a scum in the position can push the vote over the edge for them.

Ok, this ability seems to fit the nature of the role you won, so I'm inclined to believe you're being honest in that regard.

You believe I'm with Octan simply because I abstain a vote? Who's to say you're not with Octan? I mean, you are pretty quick to point the figure at me with no evidence. I don't want any Octan supporters as a speaker and it's only Day One so relax big guy... or girl. I don't want to contribute to having an Octan supporter as speaker since I'm not sure who is who just yet, that's all.

But seriously though, I can play ball too.

Vote: Winnifred Karchevsky (Walter Kovacs)

Are we already accusing based on flimsy/no evidence??! Seems like everytime I go into parliament people are just pointing accusing fingers for no reason...still plenty of time folks, still plenty of time. If your best argument is "he voted for me so he's scum" your not gonna get very far.

[Yzalirk]

Are we already accusing based on flimsy/no evidence??! Seems like everytime I go into parliament people are just pointing accusing fingers for no reason...still plenty of time folks, still plenty of time. If your best argument is "he voted for me so he's scum" your not gonna get very far.

Exactly. So why don't you tell Mrs. Winnifred Karchevsky that as well? Where was the evidence for her to vote me? Simply because I wanted to abstain a vote? For what I'm thinking right now because you are bias against me, you might be in cahoots with your Octan buddy.

I'm a very forgiving person though and I'm ready to unvote Mrs. Winnifred Karchevsky as long as she unvotes me due to a lack of evidence. And just maybe I'll vote for who I think should be our speaker.

[jluck]

Exactly. So why don't you tell Mrs. Winnifred Karchevsky that as well? Where was the evidence for her to vote me? Simply because I wanted to abstain a vote? For what I'm thinking right now because you are bias against me, you might be in cahoots with your Octan buddy.

I'm a very forgiving person though and I'm ready to unvote Mrs. Winnifred Karchevsky as long as she unvotes me due to a lack of evidence. And just maybe I'll vote for who I think should be our speaker.

You know, when I initially read your comment, I was going to respond that my statement was directed towards both of you, but on second thought I'm going to stand my ground. The accusation against you was based on your abstaining. While I personally saw no problem with your no vote, it's a reasonable reason to vote. You, on the other hand, pulled the old "you suspect me so I suspect you" argument, which I find weak and baseless.

[mostlytechnic]

Exactly. So why don't you tell Mrs. Winnifred Karchevsky that as well? Where was the evidence for her to vote me? Simply because I wanted to abstain a vote? For what I'm thinking right now because you are bias against me, you might be in cahoots with your Octan buddy.

I'm a very forgiving person though and I'm ready to unvote Mrs. Winnifred Karchevsky as long as she unvotes me due to a lack of evidence. And just maybe I'll vote for who I think should be our speaker.

First, although it did seem pretty early on for Ms. Karchevsky to be voting, she did at least have a reason for it. I don't think it was a "real" vote, I suspect it was just a poke to get you talking rather than abstaining. Your vote, however, is quite baseless and simply retaliatory and a lousy way to vote in this honorable assembly.

Additionally, what's with your statements of "maybe I'll vote for a speaker" - that vote is done. The only way we'll get to vote for a speaker again is when and if Mr. Dixon is expelled from this body. (and yes, I fully expect him to be gone in the next few days; no one being as outspoken as he has survives long) If I'm reading you right though, it sounds like you're saying you'll vote in today's speaker vote, but it is already over.

[Piratedave84]

You believe I'm with Octan simply because I abstain a vote? Who's to say you're not with Octan? I mean, you are pretty quick to point the figure at me with no evidence. I don't want any Octan supporters as a speaker and it's only Day One so relax big guy... or girl. I don't want to contribute to having an Octan supporter as speaker since I'm not sure who is who just yet, that's all.

But seriously though, I can play ball too.

Vote: Winnifred Karchevsky (Walter Kovacs)

... Is it not a bot early for an 'out of spite' vote? Your edgyness is telling, there is no reason for you to act like this.

[Lego Spy]

I'll answer for my vote for Siegfried. I find it hard to believe that an Octanite would put himself in the spotlight as early as Mr Dixon did. And waiting for any evidence, concrete or circumstantial, is like..., well, it's like I've always said about wishes: wish in one hand and shit in the other, and just see which fills up first. I don't trust Siegfried any more than I trust any of you. But we have to find the Octanites somehow, and everyone voting for themselves was not the way to accomplish that. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. Now it's time to get down to business and find those that Octan has cajoled. To that end, while there are two individuals that struck me as more likely Octan than others. One was Carol Nottingham, based on the timing of her nomination. The other is Gerald Hatley, for his firm refusal to vote for anyone, even though it is probably better to vote. If the two, I'd like to hear more on Gerald's reasoning. So... Vote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath)

You believe I'm with Octan simply because I abstain a vote? Who's to say you're not with Octan? I mean, you are pretty quick to point the figure at me with no evidence. I don't want any Octan supporters as a speaker and it's only Day One so relax big guy... or girl. I don't want to contribute to having an Octan supporter as speaker since I'm not sure who is who just yet, that's all. But seriously though, I can play ball too. Vote: Winnifred Karchevsky (Walter Kovacs)

... Is it not a bot early for an 'out of spite' vote? Your edgyness is telling, there is no reason for you to act like this.

You know, when I initially read your comment, I was going to respond that my statement was directed towards both of you, but on second thought I'm going to stand my ground. The accusation against you was based on your abstaining. While I personally saw no problem with your no vote, it's a reasonable reason to vote. You, on the other hand, pulled the old "you suspect me so I suspect you" argument, which I find weak and baseless.

... Is it not a bot early for an 'out of spite' vote? Your edgyness is telling, there is no reason for you to act like this.

I have to agree with Leroy and Pierce on this matter, because, as I'm sure many of you know, votes with little to no base are fairly common on the first day of any mafia game parliamentary discussion, and I don't think revenge votes are really going to solve anything, except make you look scummier.

(Quoted Piratedave twice by accident. )

[badboytje88]

Oooow my... Revenge voting already. That's not a very classy move. It is always hard to elect someone for eviction on the first day. I do not think revenge voting is the way to respond. Just defend yourself with style and grace.

[Yzalirk]

You know, when I initially read your comment, I was going to respond that my statement was directed towards both of you, but on second thought I'm going to stand my ground. The accusation against you was based on your abstaining. While I personally saw no problem with your no vote, it's a reasonable reason to vote. You, on the other hand, pulled the old "you suspect me so I suspect you" argument, which I find weak and baseless.

Yet you quote one and not the other? I find that a bit sketchy to leave one person out of the picture who accused me without evidence apart from trying to make me look guilty for abstaining in the mean time. But I'll...

Unvote: Winnifred Karchevsky (Walter Kovacs)

For now but let me tell you boy-o, I'll have my eye on you as well as Mrs. Winnifred Karchevsky. You can still keep your vote if you'd like, Karchevsky, but you should know your accusations have no foundation. If you have some factual evidence you'll like to try and use against me, I'm all ears.

Speaker: Speedy (Siegfried Dixon)

Happy?

[jluck]

Yet you quote one and not the other? I find that a bit sketchy to leave one person out of the picture who accused me without evidence apart from trying to make me look guilty for abstaining in the mean time. But I'll...

Unvote: Winnifred Karchevsky (Walter Kovacs)

For now but let me tell you boy-o, I'll have my eye on you as well as Mrs. Winnifred Karchevsky. You can still keep your vote if you'd like, Karchevsky, but you should know your accusations have no foundation. If you have some factual evidence you'll like to try and use against me, I'm all ears.

Speaker: Speedy (Siegfried Dixon)

Happy?

Umm...I only quoted you because your vote was the only one that bothered me. His vote had some justification, even if I didn't agree with it.

Oh, and the speaker vote closed out awhile ago. But if we're allowed to still vote just to make ourselves look good then

Speaker: Speedy (Siegfried Dixon)

See, I'm just like you guys!

[Bob]

You believe I'm with Octan simply because I abstain a vote? Who's to say you're not with Octan? I mean, you are pretty quick to point the figure at me with no evidence. I don't want any Octan supporters as a speaker and it's only Day One so relax big guy... or girl. I don't want to contribute to having an Octan supporter as speaker since I'm not sure who is who just yet, that's all.

But seriously though, I can play ball too.

Vote: Winnifred Karchevsky (Walter Kovacs)

Yet you quote one and not the other? I find that a bit sketchy to leave one person out of the picture who accused me without evidence apart from trying to make me look guilty for abstaining in the mean time. But I'll...

Unvote: Winnifred Karchevsky (Walter Kovacs)

For now but let me tell you boy-o, I'll have my eye on you as well as Mrs. Winnifred Karchevsky. You can still keep your vote if you'd like, Karchevsky, but you should know your accusations have no foundation. If you have some factual evidence you'll like to try and use against me, I'm all ears.

Speaker: Speedy (Siegfried Dixon)

Happy?

I'm going to indulge in some metagaming if only to say that if you weren't so new I'd instantly ping this as scummy. It's not always the best to revenge vote somebody. It comes off as very scummy. By the way, the vote for speaker is over. You're added to my list, but I don't think I'll be putting you at the top of it.