Mencot Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 I can't wrap my head around the stupidity of thinking there is any safety to lynching me. I am the speaker for now. I can be verified. If you lynch me, you'll be down a townie, and then the next person who is speaker (because there will be one) will also need to be verified. Right, until proven.
Yzalirk Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 It's not woe-is-me to point out bad strategy. I can't wrap my head around the stupidity of thinking there is any safety to lynching me. I am the speaker for now. I can be verified. If you lynch me, you'll be down a townie, and then the next person who is speaker (because there will be one) will also need to be verified. Of course, should I be lynched, those who pushed for it will be at the top of the list day three. I understand that some townies will make dumb votes for no reason, but it's the ones that try to pick up steam that are really dangerous. Gerald wants me to sell the idea that I'm a Loyalist? Would you like me to do a screen grab of my role PM? No, that's not going to happen. There will be no proof of my Loyalist status unless I was investigated, or I'm dead. Which every single one of us should know. His vote is lazy, without reason, and it's an attempt to get a bandwagon going on somebody the scum want out. Vote: Goliath (Gerald Hatley) This is not a revenge vote, otherwise Laughlin or Molly would have got it. No, Hatley is playing a dangerous game, and even if he is town, the sooner we get this polluted thinking out of the legislature, the better. I can change my vote if others have a more pressing argument. Just stop, seriously, just stop. You make all these claims yet you can get them checked out. Where is your proof for being a certified Loyalist? Let me tell you, I don't see anything to back up your claims. And when you play the woe-is-me, that points out being scum to me and then trying to save your own big behind by throwing people under the bus and don't have any reason as to why you did. If we're down a Loyalist, well then that sucks. But you making petty accusations isn't making you look better. We had a Loyalist get lynched and no one is really suspecting of them as guilty so why should you be different? Like you said, everyone is guilty until proven innocent, at least that's how it is according to you. I also never asked to see a screenshot of your role and I doubt you have one of an innocent role because you ask me to see it but then you just say no to it. That makes me think your scum even more. Having that said, I think I have all the reason to back-up why I think your scum. So who are you to say that my reasons are lazy when you're just making yourself look like a complete idiot right now. And clearly your vote is a revenge vote because Molly's vote is basically meaningless (I guess because she didn't vote the other day) and Laughlin probably got you good so you didn't know how to respond. You gave little to no reason for your vote against me so stop trying to hide from it. I don't care if you revenge vote me, seriously, I find it kind of amusing. And polluted thinking? According to you we should basically push to lynch someone who is thought to be scummy but turns out to be a Loyalist. Look what happened the other night, a Loyalist is gone because of that thinking. If you ask me how I'd approach it, I'd say look back, connect the dots, and find a motive for the possible scum to get rid of a person who was found to be a Loyalist. Your polluted thinking is getting us impeached. We need evidence, not gut feelings. So, again, just stop making petty accusations and get your head in this if you truly are a Loyalist. I still don't believe you are after what you've said and your revenge vote and because you haven't simply sold me the idea of your innocence. My vote was also meant to be bit of a poke, not a shove.
def Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 What are you going on about? If you have proof you're a Loyalist, show it. Ranting and name-calling doesn't impress me.
MagPiesRUs Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 What? What's going on? You people are weird. I've read the accusations against Rep. Dixon a few times and I'm still having difficulty finding any substance. You're voting for him because he's not dead and because we have no confirmation of his allegiance yet? Strange that all three accusers were also ones who voted Dixon in as speaker (though Hatley did so after voting closed), yet very little has changed since then. I'm not sure I like Siegfried using the speaker role to get himself more votes though. Unless you're getting a scummy read on someone (and by your own admission, you weren't getting a strong one from Molly), I would suggest you leave your power alone and let democracy run its course.
Piratedave84 Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 I've been compiling yesterday's voting results and here's what I got: Maurice Teichman (mostlytechnic) TPRU (1) Unvote TPRU (0) adventurer1 (5) < Ties vote Unvote adventurer1 (3) calanon (9) Winnifred Karchevsky (Walter Kovacs) Goliath (1) Unvote Goliath (0) adventurer1 (2) Unvote adventurer1 (4) calanon (6) < pushes calanon to lead (2) "Tiny" Peter Rutherford (TPRU) calanon (3) < to "add pressure" Carol Nottingham (Calanon) NO VOTE Siegfried Dixon (Speedy) calanon (2) J. Leroy King (jluck) calanon (4) Addie Tremain (adventurer1) brickelodeon (1) Lloyd Spalding (Lego Spy) calanon (8) Bobby Benedict (Bob) adventurer1 (1) Bjorn Borchard (badboytje88) adventurer1 (4) < ties vote Bryant Laughlin - (Brickelodeon) calanon (1) Sinclair Viola - (Scaevola) adventurer1 (5) Gerald Hatley (Goliath) WK (1) Unvote WK (0) adventurer1 (3) < Does not understand vote on Carol < says Adventurer1 has better defence then calanon; does not change vote Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw) NO VOTE Pierce Davy (Piratedave) Goliath (1) Unvote Goliath (0) calanon (5) < pushes calanon to lead Archie Matthews (Adam) Mencot (1) Unvote Mencot (0) calanon (10) < seals lynch Molly Callaghan (Mencot) NO VOTE Stanley Figurelli (Stickfig) JJP (1) Unvote JJP (0) Calanon (7) There's not much to go on here. As we can see there has been a lot of vote switching in the last hours and there is one that strikes me as odd; Gerald's. He admits his vote might be misplaced in saying that Addie's defence was adequated and yet does not move his vote to Carol (whom he admits is a legitimate candidate for a lynch). The timing of this makes it even weirder as there were 8 votes on Carol at that time and it seems to me that Gerald was unwilling to advance Carol's lead knowing she would turn up town. Based on this, the recent tirade and his general lack of attention/understanding, I Vote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath)
Lady K Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 I for one am not satisfied with Representative Jacob Palacios justifications. A refusal to tender his vote, especially as one of the crucial later votes strongly testifies that he was aiming for a no-lynch which would entirely benefit the Octan. Furthermore, he attempted to justify his action by stating it would make himself look scummy, which is very self-serving and suggests a paranoid inclination to maintain his reputation (though paradoxical considering his vote), which also incriminates him as scum. Therefore, I'll be voting for Jacob. Vote: Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw) I agree that Jacob is our best lynch candidate for today. I will wait to cast my vote to see if he has anything more to say in his defense. Rep. Benedict, Hatley, and Laughlin are still on my scum list and I will be keeping a close eye on them. As to our speaker, I believe he could be loyal (or scum based on previous experience) however I will agree with Rep Rutherford in that this newly revealed power should be more carefully used.
Piratedave84 Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 megabluck the table got all messed up ...
mostlytechnic Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 Okay, so surviving means I'm scum. Push it if you like. Either I'll be lynched, then you'll be lynched when I come up town, or you'll be lynched for pushing a weak lynch. As always, punishing experienced players for being experienced is a quick road to a scum win. Investigate, deduce, do whatever, but just saying that the veteran is scum because they're alive is simply weak play. On day five, if I am still alive, sure, that's fair (call it Rick's Law) Day two? That's weak. *if I'm alive and haven't proven any use to town Read more carefully please Mr. Speaker. I used a lot of IFs and Maybes and possiblies in there. I'm reminding people that as much sense as what you say may make, you're certainly experienced enough to do that even as scum. EVERYONE is a suspect until lynched. Heck, even investigations aren't 100% proof - could be a godfather, or misunderstand the situation, or plenty of other reasons as we've seen in the past. In the interest of not causing confusion and dissent, I will admit now: There is a second ability of the speaker, and it is stealing the vote of one player who didn't vote, and muting them for 24 hours. So, today, I have two votes, and Molly none, and she couldn't vote for the first chunk of the day. I haven't thought about how to use this vote yet, but Molly isn't on my suss-list yet, so I think it's prudent to reveal this now, rather than start us on a witch hunt. Officially, those are all my secrets revealed to the public. Only Molly and Carol were listed at the end of day one, so that is why Molly was chosen. Thanks for sharing that. Definitely more trust-earning to do so now than to wait till the end of the day and have a surprise vote. I'm not sure I like Siegfried using the speaker role to get himself more votes though. Unless you're getting a scummy read on someone (and by your own admission, you weren't getting a strong one from Molly), I would suggest you leave your power alone and let democracy run its course. I disagree somewhat. It's a power to be used. However, it certainly demands that the speaker have good reason to make the extra vote, since if his target turns up loyal he'd be heavily suspected. On the other hand, if there's a good reason to suspect someone or if the votes are tied or so forth, use the power. That's why it's there. It just gives us something else to watch and learn from. (something I just thought of... can you please clarify Mr Speaker - is your power two separate votes, or do you place one vote and it counts twice? That'd affect how we evaluate it's usage) As for today's discussions.... some of you may remember a few months ago when our speaker threw a cosplay party. Rep. Gerald was there, and he's acting today the same as he did in that occasion, so I'm not ready to drop a vote on him yet. I am pinging on the extreme quiet of Reps. Stanley, Jacob, Bryant, and Lloyd. Heck, even Molly who was muzzled has said more than you! Quiet is scummy.
def Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 I have to submit a vote in secret by PM. It's not a double vote.
mostlytechnic Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 I have to submit a vote in secret by PM. It's not a double vote. Ok, thanks. And I guess then we'd find out who the second vote was for when the final vote tally is posted?
Bob Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 Unvote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1) Although the speaker is on my suspicion list, I'm not entirely sure about impeaching him yet. Yes, it's a bit strange that he's not dead, but I'm sure that the Octan photographer and the Loyalist photographer figured that Representative Dixon would be protected on the first night, and therefore attempted to take out a different targets. Players that are in a position of relative power over the other players (like the Speaker role) are typically protected by the town protector. I'm leaning more towards Representative Palacios. Choosing not to vote so you don't look scummy is not something that a loyalist would do. Additionally, when you don't vote, you only help Octan. I still have quite some time to think about this, though, so I won't be voting yet. I'm not entirely sure about Gerald yet, and Bjorn seems to be confused. This is the second time today that he's missed something in the thread. Laziness, or just looking for something to post so he doesn't lurk?
Yzalirk Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 Based on this, the recent tirade and his general lack of attention/understanding, I Vote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath) You keep saying I don't understand something? What is it that I don't understand that you keep talking about? But I'll gladly keep in mind your baseless vote and bandwagoning with your Octan pal. All I know is that voting against people with little to no reason is not how we should approach it. If you have half a brain, you'd know that the best we can can by know is back track and try and put the pieces together. I stand by my vote unless Siegfred proves he's trustworthy. But because Pierce has been following in Siegfred's steps on Day One and now Day Two, it's difficult. But I really want to know how you are a verified Loyalist, Siegred, like you said. Can you please shed light on that? But, Addie, I still have my eye on you for a potential scumbag for posting too much fluff on Day One.
Adam Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 All I know is that voting against people with little to no reason is not how we should approach it. If you have half a brain, you'd know that the best we can can by know is back track and try and put the pieces together. I stand by my vote unless Siegfred proves he's trustworthy. But because Pierce has been following in Siegfred's steps on Day One and now Day Two, it's difficult. But I really want to know how you are a verified Loyalist, Siegred, like you said. Can you please shed light on that? What is he going to do, claim scum? Can anyone here prove definitively that they are a Loyalist? As a bit of an exercise, why don't you prove to us that you're a Loyalist. I have to submit a vote in secret by PM. It's not a double vote. Will your secret vote show up in the official tally?
Tamamono Posted December 29, 2014 Author Posted December 29, 2014 Vote Tally Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw) - 3 (Scaevola, Adam, badboytje88) Siegfried Dixon (Speedy) - 2 (Brickelodeon, Goliath) Gerald Hatley (Goliath) - 2 (Speedy, Piratedave) Bjorn Borchard (badboytje88) - 1 (Stickfig) 30 hours remain. With 15 representatives, it takes 8 to impeach.
Adam Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 I'm leaning more towards Representative Palacios. Choosing not to vote so you don't look scummy is not something that a loyalist would do. Additionally, when you don't vote, you only help Octan. I still have quite some time to think about this, though, so I won't be voting yet. I'm not entirely sure about Gerald yet, and Bjorn seems to be confused. This is the second time today that he's missed something in the thread. Laziness, or just looking for something to post so he doesn't lurk? I agree with your assessment of Jacob (JackJonespaw), but when did Addie (adventurer1) suddenly fall off your radar? You seemed to be pretty set on her.
Yzalirk Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 What is he going to do, claim scum? Can anyone here prove definitively that they are a Loyalist? As a bit of an exercise, why don't you prove to us that you're a Loyalist. Exactly how would you propose I do that? If I where scum, wouldn't I bit a bit less paranoid, wouldn't you think? I know for a fact that I'm a Loyalist and if any Octans knew my role, well, not only would it be bad for us Loyalists but it would make for an easier Octan win. We can all point fingers at each other but I feel like some people are just doing it without an evidence. It's not hard to look back and find a bit of evidence. Right now, with my accusations from this day, I'm leaning on maybe Addie may be a Loyalist [who was just useless and posted fluff] and Siegfred and Pierce are scum because they seem to be working together like scum. Two days in a row can't be a coincident, can't it? Also, Siegfred was quite eager to lynch Carol [Calanon] the other day which I find suspicious since she did turn up to be a Loyalist. But Pierce really is confusing me by saying I don't understand something when he hasn't told me what I don't understand. So I don't understand nothing? I'm not sure whether that's a scum tactic but if it's simply to confuse me, well, good job then because I'm confused at what you are trying to say, Pierce.
Mencot Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 It is only the scum who know´s who really are loyal... and the host. And we have to some what trust that is true but also play by the rules nobody is innocent until proven so. Not me (i know myself that I am) nor the 14 others of you here, only the 3 impeach have turned loyal. I agree some with Gerald here that Mr Dixon and Mr Davy have had similar thoughts and voting but not in every aspect can one say the agree with eachother, maybe they are scumbuddies or maybe it is an coincidence. I don´t know. But Pierce really is confusing me by saying I don't understand something when he hasn't told me what I don't understand. So I don't understand nothing? I'm not sure whether that's a scum tactic but if it's simply to confuse me, well, good job then because I'm confused at what you are trying to say, Pierce. That is how he always plays (sorry for saying this) i don´t understand him and he doesn´t understand me and he is really lousy on explaining things.
Piratedave84 Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 Exactly how would you propose I do that? If I where scum, wouldn't I bit a bit less paranoid, wouldn't you think? I know for a fact that I'm a Loyalist and if any Octans knew my role, well, not only would it be bad for us Loyalists but it would make for an easier Octan win. We can all point fingers at each other but I feel like some people are just doing it without an evidence. It's not hard to look back and find a bit of evidence. Right now, with my accusations from this day, I'm leaning on maybe Addie may be a Loyalist [who was just useless and posted fluff] and Siegfred and Pierce are scum because they seem to be working together like scum. Two days in a row can't be a coincident, can't it? Also, Siegfred was quite eager to lynch Carol [Calanon] the other day which I find suspicious since she did turn up to be a Loyalist. But Pierce really is confusing me by saying I don't understand something when he hasn't told me what I don't understand. So I don't understand nothing? I'm not sure whether that's a scum tactic but if it's simply to confuse me, well, good job then because I'm confused at what you are trying to say, Pierce. Point to me where/how I worked with Siegfred yesterday, I can't seem to find it; your flailing around when under suspicion is very ... well suspicious! That is how he always plays (sorry for saying this) i don´t understand him and he doesn´t understand me and he is really lousy on explaining things. You and I have a language barrier where he has a general lack of understanding regarding what's going on. Here's my point; Gerald asked this: SNIP All I know is that voting against people with little to no reason is not how we should approach it. If you have half a brain, you'd know that the best we can can by know is back track and try and put the pieces together. I stand by my vote unless Siegfred proves he's trustworthy. But because Pierce has been following in Siegfred's steps on Day One and now Day Two, it's difficult. But I really want to know how you are a verified Loyalist, Siegred, like you said. Can you please shed light on that? SNIP and when asked the same a few minutes later, he replies this: Exactly how would you propose I do that? If I where scum, wouldn't I bit a bit less paranoid, wouldn't you think? I know for a fact that I'm a Loyalist and if any Octans knew my role, well, not only would it be bad for us Loyalists but it would make for an easier Octan win. SNIP SMH ... Also worthy of note: This is the second time you step in for Gerald in 2 days; why do you feel it's important for you to defend/talk for him?
Adam Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 Exactly how would you propose I do that? If I where scum, wouldn't I bit a bit less paranoid, wouldn't you think? I know for a fact that I'm a Loyalist and if any Octans knew my role, well, not only would it be bad for us Loyalists but it would make for an easier Octan win. That's my point, nobody can prove definitively that they're a Loyalist. Isn't your whole argument against Siegfried (Speedy) that he's scum because he can't prove he's a Loyalist? By the same reasoning, you would be scum. I'm not saying that Siegfried (Speedy) isn't suspicious - personally, I'm put off by the fact that he didn't share his vote stealing ability with the town until now - but when you vote for someone, you need a viable reason. This is the second time you've voted for someone with a nonsensical motivation, the first time being yesterday with Carol (Calanon). In my experience, only the scum vote for players with flimsy reasoning.
Mencot Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 Also worthy of note: This is the second time you step in for Gerald in 2 days; why do you feel it's important for you to defend/talk for him? That is as much of worth of notice then that you and Mr Dixon has some same points.
Piratedave84 Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 That is as much of worth of notice then that you and Mr Dixon has some same points. Same as addressed to Gerald: point me to where I stood up, defended, agreed with or sided with Siegfried, please.
Lady K Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 Well, I have waited now for several hours and no post from Rep Jacob Palacios. His last post was well over 24hrs ago. So here is my vote. Vote: Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw)
Mencot Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 Mmmmm. I was leaning scum on Winnifred. And Carol. No read on Leroy. Bad scumdar. Must be on the fritz. I was about to say that about Winifred; I had a scum read on her. I'm surprised that Leroy was targeted; rather than Bjorn, Jacob or Addie who have contributed little to nothing on day 1. I'm curious to see what these 3 have to say today. I don´t know why I am doing this but here is from today and then the same voting but there you have diffrent reasons but as I said That is as much of worth of notice then that you and Mr Dixon has some same points. "Some same points" and then earlier I said about Gerald: I agree some with Gerald here that Mr Dixon and Mr Davy have had similar thoughts and voting but not in every aspect can one say the agree with eachother, maybe they are scumbuddies or maybe it is an coincidence. I don´t know. Meaning I don´t agree completely with him and his points but I haven´t checked day 1, gerald can do that himself and bring up the claims he is saying. But what I remember is that you also didn´t say so much in day 1, so it will be easy to go them through. Well, I have waited now for several hours and no post from Rep Jacob Palacios. His last post was well over 24hrs ago. So here is my vote. Vote: Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw) I don´t know if he would come up with something to say but he hasn´t actually been present(online) since yesterday (9:20 pm says his profile)
Bob Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 I agree with your assessment of Jacob (JackJonespaw), but when did Addie (adventurer1) suddenly fall off your radar? You seemed to be pretty set on her. She hasn't fallen off my radar, but I'm fully aware that nobody is going to support my vote against her today. Therefore, I think I should at least vote to impeach someone that I think deserves it. Voting for someone you know won't be impeached today because nobody else supports you is just a waste of a vote. Therefore, I will Vote: Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw) The one power that all of us have is the power of our vote. You should never waste it just so you don't appear scummy.
Piratedave84 Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 I don´t know why I am doing this but here is from today and then the same voting but there you have diffrent reasons but as I said "Some same points" and then earlier I said about Gerald: Meaning I don´t agree completely with him and his points but I haven´t checked day 1, gerald can do that himself and bring up the claims he is saying. But what I remember is that you also didn´t say so much in day 1, so it will be easy to go them through. I don´t know if he would come up with something to say but he hasn´t actually been present(online) since yesterday (9:20 pm says his profile) Oh snap! you caught me! I voted for the same person for different reason so I'm scum; lynch me!
Recommended Posts