Party Lines Mafia - Day One: Lame Ducks

[Piratedave84]

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?

Are you serious?

[Yzalirk]

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.

That's cute, especially since you've been awfully quiet for most of the day.

I'll also keep this in mind:

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.

Clearly, you don't trust much people as much as I do, and that's why I abstained earlier. But according to what you've said, I'd keep an eye out on Stanley since he hasn't responded to your question for him voting on the one person, and I'm sure he read it.

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.

As for you, I did jump to quite the conclusion and that is why I unvoted. I was also unaware that the votes for the speaker had ended, which is my fault for not reading thoroughly.

I'm trying to be as cautious as I can with voting for the speaker. Who's to say they can be trusted if it's only been Day One?

[Brickelodeon]

I guess I should vote since I got woken up from my nap.

Vote: Calanon (Caroll Nottingham)

I can't say that I have a great reason, other than she just seems scummy to me. It seems to me that she is trying a little too hard to act innocent.

[Lady K]

Well the day is getting off to a great start. A new speaker who may or may not be in our best interest, finger pointing, revenge voting and unvoting, voting with no reasons......just another happy day in assembly.

[def]

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.

What? You trust me both more and less than others?

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

You're trusting me as Loyal? On what grounds? This is what I always (try to) do.

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.

What?

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.

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.

Surely you know that if there was some secret ability of value, I wouldn't share it publicly. Let's be sensible. Day one, trust me as far as you can throw me.

With that, all three I've quoted here aren't hard supporting me, but scum know I'm town, and there is a failing strategy recently of scum trying to ingratiate themselves to me, since I have a tendency to turn into a bulldozer by day three.

Carol has a vote on her, and second votes tend to draw heat. Compound that with her first vote being by Bryant, who voted for me, it's an inconvenient choice on my end. But she is the one that strikes me scummiest, since she is the strongest supporter of me out of the three, with no reason, and that directly goes against her running for Speaker since she definitely didn't trust me 24 hours ago. That's the one for me so far on day one.

Vote: Calanon (Carol Nottingham)

It's not a super strong vote, so I'm happy to change if anyone has any better logic worth voting on.

A new speaker who may or may not be in our best interest...

Let's be realistic: the only person who you could say for sure is in your best interest is yourself if you're town, and your scummates if you're scum. It's not saying much of anything. If anything, you might be accused of pussyfooting in your post. Any interest in voting?

[Mencot]

Many people absent, me myself included. But it understandable for a day like this, January 19 in New Brickland, it is an important day too bad it is ruined with all this Octan traitor megablocks.

I think day 2 will be better, at least I will have more time to be present. Eggnogs, anyone

I'll have to abstain my vote on this one. I don't see a clear reason to vote anyone for speaker when they haven't given much of a reason as to why they should be voted.

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)

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.

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?

Hmm, great going kid. You gonna go far I´ll drink to that

SO nice to see that Siegfried got the speaker position, I am SO happy about it. I think I had a few too many mimosas for dinner.

Not that I trust him, from his reputation there isn´t anything trustable. But a politican like that is best suited for speaker. Salute.

From the lack of all being present and speaking, me myself included and all my other dear colleagues also, I can say that Mrs Notthingham, Mr Nixon, Mr Hatley, Mr Matthews (in no specific order) strick out the most. But they are also the ones that have been present the most.

SO not much to go on, even less then a usuall day 1.

[StickFig]

Why don't you have a good feeling about Siegfried (Speedy)? You're perfectly entitled to that opinion, but I think a statement like that deserves justification.

Sinclair and Stanley, tell me, why did you vote for Carol, besides not trusting Siegfried?

It's not that I felt any worse about Siegfried than I do about anyone else; it's that somehow he had support when no one else did, even if it was only a tiny bit. (As I said earlier,) I only voted for Carol because she was closest to beating Siegfried. I don't trust either one of them.

As far as voting, our new Speaker has just thrown his weight into voting Carol out, pushing her into the "lead"... maybe I'm just a jumpy freshman legislator, but it sure feels like he has a lot of pull around here. I'm interested to see who else will vote that way just because he did.

[MagPiesRUs]

I've been waiting for a while to hear some sort of defense from Carol, but it seems she's gone missing now. To add some more pressure, I will Vote: Calanon (Carol Nottingham)

[Calanon]

Well hello, I fell asleep! 'Tis my old age, you see...

Okay I'll try to explain what I mean. I'm going to go with you being town for now until we have more evidence, since other people trust you. I trust you as much as anyone else trusts you. You could very easily fool everyone.

I

It's not that I felt any worse about Siegfried than I do about anyone else; it's that somehow he had support when no one else did, even if it was only a tiny bit. (As I said earlier,) I only voted for Carol because she was closest to beating Siegfried. I don't trust either one of them.

As far as voting, our new Speaker has just thrown his weight into voting Carol out, pushing her into the "lead"... maybe I'm just a jumpy freshman legislator, but it sure feels like he has a lot of pull around here. I'm interested to see who else will vote that way just because he did.

Yes, he does have a lot of pull and that's what I'm afraid of. People will follow him no matter what. If he is who he says he is, great. If he isn't...

[Bob]

Vote: Calanon (Caroll Nottingham)

Vote: Calanon (Carol Nottingham)

Vote: Calanon (Carol Nottingham)

A bandwagon appears to be starting already? I'm not too sure about this one myself. However:

Well hello, I fell asleep! 'Tis my old age, you see...

Okay I'll try to explain what I mean. I'm going to go with you being town for now until we have more evidence, since other people trust you. I trust you as much as anyone else trusts you. You could very easily fool everyone.

I

Yes, he does have a lot of pull and that's what I'm afraid of. People will follow him no matter what. If he is who he says he is, great. If he isn't...

This isn't exactly the best defense when it comes to someone accusing you. She answered the accusation somewhat, but then again it's not too strong of a claim.

I myself would like to hear more from Addie. She started the day out with a fluff post, which fell in nicely with the other ones, came back to vote for herself, then returned later with another fluff summary post that didn't do anything to help, and again, went unnoticed.

Vote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1)

What do you have to say for yourself, Representative Tremain? Are you here to help us, or to just make fluff posts and summaries?

[Yzalirk]

I'm lost, why is everyone voting Caroll Nottingham? I'm assuming, for now, it's just a "friendly" poke..?

[Walter Kovacs]

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.

Now would I go and poke someone like that?

In point of fact, it was merely a poke, and it elicited quite an interesting response. Though I CAN agree that his response might have been from inexperience, and not from scumminess. I'm leaning more Loyal than Octan on Gerald right now, so...

Unvote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath)

As for the speed of my accusation, we have a limited time to try and get information for a Day 1 lynch, and accusations generate discussion, and defenses. The more we get the Octans talking, the more chances they have to slip up. In that vein, why wouldn't I try and get meaningful conversations started as early as possible? It almost seems scummy NOT to throw out an accusation early, especially on Day 1 when information is so limited.

The final point is Carol. As I stated before, I did find her speaker vote curious, more curious than Tiny's vote. However, there is a danger of a bandwagon rolling out of control right now, so I will hold off until I hear more discussion, especially from Ms Nottingham.

[Yzalirk]

Well well, I don't have much else to do these days. Plenty of time! And furthermore, I have never voted for something in the past which turned out to be bad!

...

You may have a point, but I am very shocked Mr London was working for Octan. You will have your time, young man.

...

This is precisely my reasoning for voting for myself! Maybe I should have abstained for a while though.

I've decided to tender my vote for Rep. Carol Nottingham. She answered the questions posed to her well enough, and therefore I trust her to be less manipulative and evasive than the other old dogs. Prior experiences also seem to testify to this as well.

Speaker: Calanon (Carol Nottingham)

I went back to see why people find Carol a bit scummy and I'm starting to agree. Now, I'm not going to join the bandwagon and vote just yet. Carol, can you explain to me why it seems like you gave some weak reasons for voting for yourself?

And Sinclair, why were you so quick to vote for her as a speaker? I find it a bit odd to vote for someone who gives a weak reason that is basically "I vote for myself because I'm old". It seems like they were all kind of evasive on questions and I want to know, from you, why you believe Carol was the least evasive?

[badboytje88]

Well at this point Carol looks like an as good as we are going to get option. Although I am not satisfied enough to vote for her. And I have to agree that I too do not get why Sinclair would vote for her...

[jluck]

Dear me, I go to sleep for just a bit and I miss some really good accusing!

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.

Ok, this does strike me as a bit odd. The soft support for the speaker without really committing comes off scummy (note: "I trust you more than others and significantly less than others" or "we go with Siegfried being loyal, but we should be cautious). It seems like mrs. Nottingham is walking the line. This has got my attention.

vote carol Nottingham (calanon)

I will note that this vote concerns me for two reasons.

1) early voting trends rarely seem to hold together because people get flighty when others agree with them.

2) it puts me in an odd position because I'm late to the vote, making me out to be suspicious.

But with that being said, I truly feel that she is currently our best candidate in an otherwise week day 1 field.

[def]

A bandwagon appears to be starting already? I'm not too sure about this one myself. However:

Three people is not a bandwagon. Your mislabeling is noted though.

I'm lost, why is everyone voting Caroll Nottingham? I'm assuming, for now, it's just a "friendly" poke..?

Three people is not everyone. Your mislabeling is noted though.

Well at this point Carol looks like an as good as we are going to get option. Although I am not satisfied enough to vote for her. And I have to agree that I too do not get why Sinclair would vote for her...

What? In what world is Carol as good an option as we'll get? Vote for who you want! Go for it, lead the vote for the person you feel strongest to be scum. Go for it!

I'm really torn. I want to support people to voice their doubts, but their critiques so far are utter milquetoast. I'm voting for Carol since her 'support' of me is as weak as it gets, and as others have noted, people are considering me a person of weight, as misguided as that might be. Regardless, I have to say, public support of me should be a cause of suspicion more than of trust. These are the scummy belly feeders off of a whale shark, more than the smooth allies they might position themselves as.

All the same, Carol is still the scummiest on my own list.

<snip>

Scummy. Seconding accusations early. I watched you do so as scum last big game (if I remember correctly), so parroting established suspicions might work against you more than for you. Sorry.

[mostlytechnic]

I've been waiting for a while to hear some sort of defense from Carol, but it seems she's gone missing now. To add some more pressure, I will Vote: Calanon (Carol Nottingham)

Hm. So now "waiting a while" means a whopping 6 hours from the first vote to yours, during what is the middle of the night for those in the US. Or in Ms. Nottingham's case (as I believe she's from the UK), middle of the night into morning. And you're the third vote on her, always a suspicious position in my eyes. Vote 1, a poke. Vote 2 from Mr. Dixon was at least well explained. Vote 3 from you, lousy reasoning. While this may not be a full-on bandwagon, it looks to me like you're trying to start one. Therefore, I will

Vote: TPRU ("Tiny" Peter Rutherford)

[badboytje88]

What? In what world is Carol as good an option as we'll get? Vote for who you want! Go for it, lead the vote for the person you feel strongest to be scum. Go for it!

Well problem is that at the moment I do not feel strong about anyone being scum. Not even about Carol. But somrone needs to be lynched.

[Calanon]

I went back to see why people find Carol a bit scummy and I'm starting to agree. Now, I'm not going to join the bandwagon and vote just yet. Carol, can you explain to me why it seems like you gave some weak reasons for voting for yourself?

Well, who else was I going to vote for so early on? There's also the added thing of not having any night actions, so I wanted some power. >.>

I was surprised that two people actually voted for me, I considered changing my vote but I didn't want to after I had some votes. Maybe I could have though. Too late now.

[jluck]

[snip]

Scummy. Seconding accusations early. I watched you do so as scum last big game (if I remember correctly), so parroting established suspicions might work against you more than for you. Sorry.

Meta-gaming already are we? Very well then, I will play along. First, the only time I was scum was in a mafia school game (see my signature), a game you hosted as I recall. And in that game i based my entire playing style from previous observations of your style. In that game, I was actually quite the leader since most others were new, I was hardly a follower. But since your typical style is to cast a wide net of suspicions, I hardly take offence. My vote was based off my obsevations of what I had seen, I would have voted that same had I made those same observations yesterday, I just happened to be asleep during the time the posts were made.

[MagPiesRUs]

Hm. So now "waiting a while" means a whopping 6 hours from the first vote to yours, during what is the middle of the night for those in the US. Or in Ms. Nottingham's case (as I believe she's from the UK), middle of the night into morning. And you're the third vote on her, always a suspicious position in my eyes. Vote 1, a poke. Vote 2 from Mr. Dixon was at least well explained. Vote 3 from you, lousy reasoning. While this may not be a full-on bandwagon, it looks to me like you're trying to start one. Therefore, I will

Vote: TPRU ("Tiny" Peter Rutherford)

To clarify, I had seen her reading the thread and was waiting to hear what she had to say for just under an hour. I realise that some people may be multitasking, but I feel it is worth pointing out because it's possible she was using this time to seek advice from other scum and plan out a defense.

[Yzalirk]

Well, who else was I going to vote for so early on? There's also the added thing of not having any night actions, so I wanted some power. >.>

I was surprised that two people actually voted for me, I considered changing my vote but I didn't want to after I had some votes. Maybe I could have though. Too late now.

You could have abstained and not voted, like some people did. So saying you had to vote is not going to cut it.

Three people is not everyone. Your mislabeling is noted though.

Three people is quite a lot of people though. I'm also not sure why you'd "note" a mislabel but I'm fine with you being ridiculous especially considering that it's not important whatsoever unless you'd like to elaborate as to why it's important to you though.

[mostlytechnic]

To clarify, I had seen her reading the thread and was waiting to hear what she had to say for just under an hour. I realise that some people may be multitasking, but I feel it is worth pointing out because it's possible she was using this time to seek advice from other scum and plan out a defense.

That is information worth sharing. It does make your vote a bit more understandable. On the other hand, I know I often leave the thread open and refresh occasionally while doing other things, so I can't say that it's an automatic scum-tell.

[MagPiesRUs]

Well, who else was I going to vote for so early on? There's also the added thing of not having any night actions, so I wanted some power. >.>

I was surprised that two people actually voted for me, I considered changing my vote but I didn't want to after I had some votes. Maybe I could have though. Too late now.

Wait, why do you seem to be regretting not voting for someone else now? Why would you ever pull yourself out of the running when other people vote for you if you were a loyal representative and thus knew you'd make a good speaker?

[Calanon]

To clarify, I had seen her reading the thread and was waiting to hear what she had to say for just under an hour. I realise that some people may be multitasking, but I feel it is worth pointing out because it's possible she was using this time to seek advice from other scum and plan out a defense.

I was indeed multitasking. I do that too often. Waaaay too often.

You could have abstained and not voted, like some people did. So saying you had to vote is not going to cut it.

Yeah, I could have. I didn't say I had to vote though, I said who else was I going to vote for.

Wait, why do you seem to be regretting not voting for someone else now? Why would you ever pull yourself out of the running when other people vote for you if you were a loyal representative and thus knew you'd make a good speaker?

I don't. I said I considered changing it, up until somebody else voted for me. Other people voting for me is what stopped me pulling myself out of the running.