Party Lines Mafia - Day One: Lame Ducks

[Piratedave84]

I can see how the case on Carol is valid-ish due to his wanting out of the voting once he had votes; odd behaviour indeed.

Personally though I would like to Vote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath) for 2 reasons:

1) I don't want to have to 'carry him' through the game; it's obvious by his posts that he does not grasp some of the concepts of the situation and I feel he will become a burden on us in the long term. This makes him (to me) a perfect day one lynch candidate.

2) His vote for Winnifred was cearly out of spite and was just messy; see point 1)

[Scaevola]

I'll explain my vote for Carol yet again though people seem to have filtered out my prior explanation following Rep. Benedict's inquiry

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?

Rep. Dixon is a more experienced legislator than Rep. Nottingham. When Rep. Dixon was acting under an ulterior motive (The Red Menace case) I found him very difficult to decipher. Furthermore, I've had more contact with Rep. Nottingham and therefore would find her easier to weed out should she seem suspicious. Therefore, it was not out of trust for Carol, but for better discernment of their allegiance as speaker. I avoided voting for the other candidates because I have less experience with them than with Rep. Nottingham.

Also Rep. Laughlin, you did not respond to the question I posed to you. Your statement of Siegfried Dixon as "less moronic" than the rest of us is hardly applicable in matters of questionable allegiance. I'd like to see this vote better justified. Basely, it seemed a sycophantic attempt to endear yourself to the preferred candidate for the speakership.

[Adam]

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.

Fair point here. I was also a little bothered when Siegfried (Speedy), and later Carol (Calanon) got support for Speaker (in a perfect vacuum, everyone would vote for themselves), but I'm attributing that to metagaming right now. I can understand why some of the representatives in this body, especially the newer ones, would want a more experienced politician in that position.

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.

Any particular reason for fingering those people? I tend to be suspicious when people casually claim that they suspect someone without supporting their claim. It's what people do to fly under the radar without appearing inactive.

Also, there's quite a bit to go on. This is one of the more interesting first days of assembly that I've witnessed. We had people trying to decide who should be made Speaker, we had the poke vote on Gerald (Goliath), and now we have a few people voting for Carol (Calanon). Surely you can offer some comment?

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?

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

I'm not sure if I should attribute this to scumminess or inexperience. On the one hand, you make a bandwagon out of three votes. On the other, you set up a motive for you to jump on that "bandwagon" should the need arise by making a very weak accusation. It seems like you're grasping at straws: none of the candidates for Speaker, myself included, offered very strong reasons for voting for them. Because there weren't any. We had literally nothing to go on when voting for Speaker, save for a bit of metagaming.

Thad said, there's a solid reason to be wary of Carol (Calonon), and it's this:

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.

Outside of this being very confusing (you trust him but you don't trust him?), there is no reason to assume another player is a Loyal Representative at this point. Only the scum know who is and isn't town right now.

I'm going to return to Molly (Mencot) for the moment.

(Found something elsethen my mobile, a tablet or what do you call these things. Not much better )

Okay (not ok-ey) for my comment yesterday and voting for speaker. Iwas about to quote the 3 first claimers for speakerpostition but somehow it posted the modified thing of voting for siegfried.

Not that in the end, i would had actually vote for siegfried has the speaker. We will now have to what the speaker role brings.

For voting, it will be a bit hard than a usual day 1(and day 1 are always hard to know) to who to vote for. Will have to go through the comments so far a bit better.

As I said before, you've been trying to fly under the radar. Your contributions today have included summarization, vague fingerings, and unfulfilled promises to "go through the comments" in order to find something to discuss, all hallmarks of a politician who is either lazy or scummy. Furthermore, you immediately voted for Siegfried (Speedy) as Speaker without any providing any reasoning or justification, and you have yet to explain that vote.

Vote: Molly Callaghan (Mencot)

[Tamamono]

Vote Count

Gerald Hatley (Goliath) - 1 (Piratedave)

Carol Nottingham (Calanon) - 4 (Brickeloden, Speedy, TPRU, jluck)

Addie Tremain (adventurer1) - 1 (Bob)

"Tiny" Peter Rutherford (TPRU) - 1 (mostlytechnic)

Molly Callaghan (Mencot) - 1 (Adam)

11 hours until voting ends. With 18 players it takes 10 to lynch

[Yzalirk]

I can see how the case on Carol is valid-ish due to his wanting out of the voting once he had votes; odd behaviour indeed.

Personally though I would like to Vote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath) for 2 reasons:

1) I don't want to have to 'carry him' through the game; it's obvious by his posts that he does not grasp some of the concepts of the situation and I feel he will become a burden on us in the long term. This makes him (to me) a perfect day one lynch candidate.

2) His vote for Winnifred was cearly out of spite and was just messy; see point 1)

That's quite ironic coming from the one with only four posts that are pretty much useless like:

Are you serious?

What help is that? You also did say earlier that you'd vote for Siegfried Dixon but you never even voted. How are you just as reliable? If anything, you seem pretty useless.

And your #2 reason for voting against me is just stupid since I did unvote and basically admit how stupid it was for me to revenge vote without any evidence to back it up.

[Walter Kovacs]

I can see how the case on Carol is valid-ish due to his wanting out of the voting once he had votes; odd behaviour indeed.

Personally though I would like to Vote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath) for 2 reasons:

1) I don't want to have to 'carry him' through the game; it's obvious by his posts that he does not grasp some of the concepts of the situation and I feel he will become a burden on us in the long term. This makes him (to me) a perfect day one lynch candidate.

2) His vote for Winnifred was cearly out of spite and was just messy; see point 1)

Yes, his retaliatory vote was messy. But it also points to him being Loyal to this assembly. So you are saying you would rather vote out a likely Loyal, rather than trying to find an actual Octanite? What do you hope to gain out of such a vote? What can we learn from that kind of vote?

Unless. Unless we loyalists have one of your Octan cronies in our cross-hairs, and this vote for Gerald is just a distraction. Hrrm.

[Piratedave84]

Yes, his retaliatory vote was messy. But it also points to him being Loyal to this assembly. So you are saying you would rather vote out a likely Loyal, rather than trying to find an actual Octanite? What do you hope to gain out of such a vote? What can we learn from that kind of vote?

Unless. Unless we loyalists have one of your Octan cronies in our cross-hairs, and this vote for Gerald is just a distraction. Hrrm.

You may have misunderstod me (or I may have not been clear enough); I never said I though he was scum or scummy. My vote is based on his inability to read and follow the pace of the situation.

Why are you trying to sway my vote? Do you have reason to defend him?

Side note: I was under the impression that it was the player with most votes which would be lynched but I now see it's a majority vote; this may change my vote in the long run seeing I'm a big supporter of the "we need a lynch on day one" philosophy but for now my vote stands.

That's quite ironic coming from the one with only four posts that are pretty much useless like:

What help is that? You also did say earlier that you'd vote for Siegfried Dixon but you never even voted. How are you just as reliable? If anything, you seem pretty useless.

And your #2 reason for voting against me is just stupid since I did unvote and basically admit how stupid it was for me to revenge vote without any evidence to back it up.

Think before you act, read the thread, understand the rules; your lack of attention is irritating. I did not vote because I got drunk and forgot to; last time I mafia'ed drunk it was messy, very messy

[Yzalirk]

You may have misunderstod me (or I may have not been clear enough); I never said I though he was scum or scummy. My vote is based on his inability to read and follow the pace of the situation.

Why are you trying to sway my vote? Do you have reason to defend him?

Side note: I was under the impression that it was the player with most votes which would be lynched but I now see it's a majority vote; this may change my vote in the long run seeing I'm a big supporter of the "we need a lynch on day one" philosophy but for now my vote stands.

So why wouldn't you vote for the person who you think stands out more to be scum instead of the one who misinterpreted something? It also seems you like to hop on the bandwagon express, I'll keep that in mind.

Right now, you seem pretty scummy. Especially since you aren't contributing the trying to "lynch" a possible Octanite. But if you are truly a Loyalist, just stop and reevaluate your strategy because you may very well help Octanites win. Or you could be an Octanite and just making yourself look bad and digging yourself a deeper grave.

[Piratedave84]

So why wouldn't you vote for the person who you think stands out more to be scum instead of the one who misinterpreted something? It also seems you like to hop on the bandwagon express, I'll keep that in mind.

Right now, you seem pretty scummy. Especially since you aren't contributing the trying to "lynch" a possible Octanite. But if you are truly a Loyalist, just stop and reevaluate your strategy because you may very well help Octanites win. Or you could be an Octanite and just making yourself look bad and digging yourself a deeper grave.

I said it earlier, it's a day one vote, anything goes.

What do you figure the odds of a day one lynch being scum are? My vote is as good as any. Speaking of which, Where's your vote?

[Walter Kovacs]

What do you figure the odds of a day one lynch being scum are?

The odds go up significantly when you vote for someone you think is scummy.

And to answer your question, no, I have no reason to defend Gerald, other than I feel he is less scummy than many other members of this legislature.

I've been going over the proceedings from today, and I don't feel right voting for Carol at this time. Instead, I vote:

Vote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1)

Addie has had very little to say all day, voted for herself very late in the Speaker debate (3 hours, 15 minutes before the close of voting, to be exact), and has not given us her opinion in the form of a vote on who she finds suspicious.

[Yzalirk]

I said it earlier, it's a day one vote, anything goes.

What do you figure the odds of a day one lynch being scum are? My vote is as good as any. Speaking of which, Where's your vote?

You never know, if you play your cards right and connect the dots, you can find find the scum quite easily. And my vote is here:

Vote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1)

I vote Addie because she's proven to be useless and basically just summarizes what has happened. Her posts are mostly just irrelevant. I would have voted Carol but she hasn't been as useless as Addie. I don't don't trust Carol though because she just has terrible excuses for things but I'd rather keep a player in who is at least trying. Random BS = good-bye!

[StickFig]

Vote: JackJonespaw (Jacob Palacios)

[Lady K]

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

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

What?

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.

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?

You are correct in your statement that myself for speaker was in the best interest for myself and town as I'm the only one I can trust this early in the game. And I'm very interested in voting. I have had major issues with my iPad and am now on my laptop so sorry to all for the delay. In my catch up reading and note taking some interesting things have come up. Please see the following:

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

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?

At this point I only have three posts. And so do you Rep. Benedict! Your seriously voting for me? Fluff for two posts was only natural for the beginning of the day. What about you? Where is your real contributions?

The odds go up significantly when you vote for someone you think is scummy.

And to answer your question, no, I have no reason to defend Gerald, other than I feel he is less scummy than many other members of this legislature.

I've been going over the proceedings from today, and I don't feel right voting for Carol at this time. Instead, I vote:

Vote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1)

Addie has had very little to say all day, voted for herself very late in the Speaker debate (3 hours, 15 minutes before the close of voting, to be exact), and has not given us her opinion in the form of a vote on who she finds suspicious.

Rep Karchevsky the hour to vote is not late yet. I have been reading posts carefully to make the best decision I can on who to vote out as Octan scum. What other evidence against me do you have?

You never know, if you play your cards right and connect the dots, you can find find the scum quite easily. And my vote is here:

Vote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1)

I vote Addie because she's proven to be useless and basically just summarizes what has happened. Her posts are mostly just irrelevant. I would have voted Carol but she hasn't been as useless as Addie. I don't don't trust Carol though because she just has terrible excuses for things but I'd rather keep a player in who is at least trying. Random BS = good-bye!

Rep. Hatley, really, joining a bandwagon against me with no evidence of your own? Useless? Really? And how have I been useless? If you check the post count you will see others with the same or lower post count than me. So how exactly am I more useless than them?

As for those with low counts: Representatives Laughlin, Palacios have only two posts. Spalding,Benedict, and myself prior to this post only have three posts.

I will vote for Rep. Laughlin based on the fact that for only two posts one was to cast the first vote for Rep Nottingham. So where has he been since?

Vote: Bryant Laughlin (Brickelodeon) [\b]

Sorry, laptop operator issues.

Vote: Bryant Laughlin (Brickelodeon)

See my previous posts for reasoning.

[Tamamono]

Vote Count

Carol Nottingham (Calanon) - 4 (Brickeloden, Speedy, TPRU, jluck)

Addie Tremain (adventurer1) - 3 (Bob, Walter Kovacs, Goliath)

Gerald Hatley (Goliath) - 1 (Piratedave)

"Tiny" Peter Rutherford (TPRU) - 1 (mostlytechnic)

Molly Callaghan (Mencot) - 1 (Adam)

Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw) - 1 (Stickfig)

Bryant Laughlin (Brickelodeon) - 1 (adventurer1)

9 hours until voting ends. With 18 players, 10 votes are needed to lynch.

[Yzalirk]

Rep. Hatley, really, joining a bandwagon against me with no evidence of your own? Useless? Really? And how have I been useless? If you check the post count you will see others with the same or lower post count than me. So how exactly am I more useless than them?

Are you being serious right now?

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.

Please explain what is so helpful as to posting that. Summarizing what happens is a cheap way to appear active here and it doesn't even count as a contribution. Fluff is what you guys call it? At least make an attempt to be helpful instead of stating the damn obvious.

As for you thinking I joined a bandwagon, no I didn't. If I had done so, I would not have any reason to vote for you. Actually, better yet, can you please explain how I am trying to bandwagon against you? Not once have I sad to vote for you nor did anyone influence me against you. I looked back, say your unless posts, and made my decision that way.

[badboytje88]

Useless? Really? And how have I been useless? If you check the post count you will see others with the same or lower post count than me. So how exactly am I more useless than them?

Amount of posts does not equal the usefulness of an individual. It's about what you say, not about the amount of times you say something. I am in dubio about who to vote for so for the time being I will vote for you and read back if there is anyone who deserves my vote more than you do.

Addie Tremain (adventurer1)

Vote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1)

My bad

[def]

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.

Because a bunch of notes add up to scum. Scum don't strongly push, they nudge. So, I must consciously note what comes up.

[Piratedave84]

I'm not liking what I'm seeing, this is shaping up to be a no lynch ... , I will therefore Unvote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath) and Vote: Carol Nottingham (Calanon)

I think we need a lynch today and of the 2 main candidates, I feel Carol is our best bet.

I'm not however liking how Gerald seems to be mimicking Winnifred's every move; sheep or scum buddy?

[mostlytechnic]

Well, well, well... I agree that a no lynch would be a terrible mistake. So although I'm still pinging on Tiny Peter, I will

Unvote: "Tiny" Peter Rutherford (TPRU)

and

Vote: Addie Tremain (Adventurer1)

Why? Well, At this point I've now tied it up between Reps Tremain and Nottingham. There are 5 votes still unplaced, and 3 votes that are solo. That's plenty to lynch either of these two. I put MY vote on Tremain because of the two, Nottingham has seemed more helpful and defended herself better. So it's not so much a vote AGAINST Tremain, although I agree with all the other comments of fluffy posting. That's not a guarantee by any means of scumminess - it's day 1, there's not that much to seriously discuss yet. However, of the two, I'd rather keep Nottingham for another day.

[Walter Kovacs]

I agree with Mr Davy. We need a lynch today if we are going to learn anything today. Although I don't believe she is scum, I'm afraid Carol is the best candidate here. I am sorry, Mrs Nottingham.

Unvote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1)

Vote: Carol Nottingham (Calanon)

[Lego Spy]

After hearing their defenses, I'm unconvinced by both Carol's and Addie's defenses.

Addie's explanation for her fluff post is somewhat odd.

... Fluff for two posts was only natural for the beginning of the day.

Given the post that I believe is considered "fluff" was posted close to 24 after the start of voting, I'd say that's a little after the "beginning of the day".*

*Reference:

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.

I'm leaning towards Carol at the moment, but I'm going to wait about 30 minutes to cast my vote to wait and see if either of you two have any convincing defenses.

[mostlytechnic]

I agree with Mr Davy. We need a lynch today if we are going to learn anything today. Although I don't believe she is scum, I'm afraid Carol is the best candidate here. I am sorry, Mrs Nottingham.

It was tied; your switch made it 6:4. So I think we need a better explanation than just "she is the best candidate here" - got a REASON you voted Nottingham over Tremain? There's still 5 hours and lots of votes to be placed (assuming all the other members can get off their lazy bums and get in here and do their jobs! Lazy scoundrels. Oughta lose your position here for not voting I say!)

[MagPiesRUs]

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.

You said this:

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.

Which looks to me like you regret not having pulled out of the running. It sounds like you would have done things differently if you had the chance to go back, which makes no sense since by your own admission, you are the only person you can fully trust in the role of speaker.

[Scaevola]

I'm going to place my vote on Rep. Addie Tremain

Vote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1)

I consider Tremain a more viable candidate due to the evidence against Calanon being of more early substance and mainly due to her support in her bid for the speakership. Wherefore, the opposition against Addie is more founded upon consistent data relating to few and fluffy posts. I am however also a firebrand of lynching on the first day and encourage late voters to cast their vote upon the accused more who has more votes or is more apt to gain votes at that time.

[jluck]

Ok guys, tremain (adventurer1) or carol (calanon)? I've stated my case against carol and I still hold it as being the most suspicious thing I've seen on this day 1. A day 1 lynch is rarely accurate, by highly important!