def 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? You are voting against me with literally no reason. You want me to show I'm verified? I already explained to you that everybody knows that can't be done. But, if somebody in the town block wants to track me, wants to investigate me, whatever, they will see I'm telling the truth. That literally is the best we can do in this situation. The only better thing is for me to lead a lynch on scum, and that's not exactly easy. But, your flailing and overstatement, contradicting yourself make you a solid candidate. As for Pierce voting me for speaker, and following my votes, that's not great. I've seen it before, and it was scummy. Here is one of my personal mafia rules: #2 is the scummy one. #1 is just doing their thing. #2 is trying to ingratiate, look subtle, encourage... That's something I don't trust. Of course, Hatley was #2 on the vote against me, which is why I voted for him. 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. Will your secret vote show up in the official tally? Yup, Hatley has polluted thinking. If he demands proof from every one of us, looks like we'll get a lot of us in bodybags in order to prove we're loyal. I'll send my vote in and see with the next tally. 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 There is no reason to share information like that, and I simply wouldn't have told at all, except that someone was accusing Molly of being absent... which was because of me, and I felt it better to share at that point to keep things on track. But in general, I think it's better to keep that stuff private.
Yzalirk Posted December 29, 2014 Posted December 29, 2014 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 was mainly talking about when his method was to lynch people to prove their innocence. What would be the point when the person, or people, are gone. I get this impression that he doesn't look back to find people who possibly targeted certain people. But, of course, when there's a vigilante, it's hard to tell who got to who. What I'm suggesting is that method should be loosened up and find connections. I hate contributing to lynching people who are town but I'll be honest, there will be mistakes and, of course, some sacrifices might have to be made. And Pierce, I misinterpreted something you said to Siegfred, so that's my fault there. But you it seems like you have said things similar to Siegfred. I don't necessarily find that scummy but a bit odd. But when you went after me quite a bit on Day One and quite a bit now. Have I made a connection? Anyways, I'll have my eye on the both of you and if I do turn out to be impeached by Octan at night, hopefully people will look more into you guys if you both truly aren't Loyalists. Having that said, I want to hear from the people who hardly say anything. If people keep this up, I might just change my vote to one of them since I feel like everyone should contribute and shouldn't hide by not saying anything. I just saw your new post, Siegfried, and you do make a good point. So, for now, I'll... Unvote: Speedy (Siegfried Dixon) Maybe I am wrong about you but for now, I want to hear what to "inactive" people have to say. By that, I mean the people who don't talk much.
Scaevola Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 I was mainly talking about when his method was to lynch people to prove their innocence. What would be the point when the person, or people, are gone. I get this impression that he doesn't look back to find people who possibly targeted certain people. But, of course, when there's a vigilante, it's hard to tell who got to who. What I'm suggesting is that method should be loosened up and find connections. I hate contributing to lynching people who are town but I'll be honest, there will be mistakes and, of course, some sacrifices might have to be made. And Pierce, I misinterpreted something you said to Siegfred, so that's my fault there. But you it seems like you have said things similar to Siegfred. I don't necessarily find that scummy but a bit odd. But when you went after me quite a bit on Day One and quite a bit now. Have I made a connection? Anyways, I'll have my eye on the both of you and if I do turn out to be impeached by Octan at night, hopefully people will look more into you guys if you both truly aren't Loyalists. Having that said, I want to hear from the people who hardly say anything. If people keep this up, I might just change my vote to one of them since I feel like everyone should contribute and shouldn't hide by not saying anything. I just saw your new post, Siegfried, and you do make a good point. So, for now, I'll... Unvote: Speedy (Siegfried Dixon) Maybe I am wrong about you but for now, I want to hear what to "inactive" people have to say. By that, I mean the people who don't talk much. The speaker was endorsing the view that nobody can be wholly trusted and confirmed to be Loyal until their allegiance is displayed upon their death, not that we should impeach representatives merely to learn their roles. The distinction was made abundantly clear, therefore Hatley's conjectures could easily be a scummy attempt to deceive the loyals. I'll be looking closely at further actions of the representative. Again Representatives Laughlin and Palacios, care to comment? And especially in the case of the latter, respond to the allegations against you?
JackJonespaw Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Again Representatives Laughlin and Palacios, care to comment? And especially in the case of the latter, respond to the allegations against you? Ok, here we go. My reasons for not voting were, I felt, justified - not only trying to preserve my personal reputation, which, in hind sight, obviously, was a move that didn't settle too well with you all; but also trying to keep our Loyal numbers up. A lynch on Day 1 is not necessary, never is, and although at the time it seemed as though your reasons for voting off Nottingham were good, might not seem so good. I'm not chiding anyone on their performance in any way, and, whatever, the Day 1 lynch has already happened. Those were my reasons for abstaining, still are. I know that it seems like I'm just doing this for myself, and it probably would have been an intelligent move to bring up my other reason earlier, but no better time than the present, so there it all is. 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. Ah, whoops, didn't meant to quote Rep. Benedict
mostlytechnic Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Ok, here we go. My reasons for not voting were, I felt, justified - not only trying to preserve my personal reputation, which, in hind sight, obviously, was a move that didn't settle too well with you all; but also trying to keep our Loyal numbers up. A lynch on Day 1 is not necessary, never is, and although at the time it seemed as though your reasons for voting off Nottingham were good, might not seem so good. I'm not chiding anyone on their performance in any way, and, whatever, the Day 1 lynch has already happened. Those were my reasons for abstaining, still are. I know that it seems like I'm just doing this for myself, and it probably would have been an intelligent move to bring up my other reason earlier, but no better time than the present, so there it all is. Well, let an old-timer speak. I tried that argument back in my younger days, and while it may be mathematically true (yep, I had studies and research backing that position), it's not considered true here in New Brickland. So save your breath and understand that everyone in this legislature considers not lynching on day 1 a scum move. The only reason to prevent a day 1 lynch, according to legislators here, is to protect a scum buddy.
Tamamono Posted December 30, 2014 Author Posted December 30, 2014 Vote Tally Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw) - 5 (Scaevola, Adam, badboytje88, adventurer1, Bob) Gerald Hatley (Goliath) - 3 (Speedy, Piratedave) Siegfried Dixon (Speedy) - 1 (Brickelodeon) Bjorn Borchard (badboytje88) - 1 (Stickfig) 22 hours remain. With 15 representatives, it takes 8 to impeach.
StickFig Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Alright, Bjorn, I poked you and you didn't explode. Unvote: Bjorn Borchard (badboytje88) Vote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath) Don't think you're off the hook for my vote, Representative Palacios; there are 22 hours left but Representative Hatley has been a little too loud lately.
Bob Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Ok, here we go. My reasons for not voting were, I felt, justified - not only trying to preserve my personal reputation, which, in hind sight, obviously, was a move that didn't settle too well with you all; but also trying to keep our Loyal numbers up. A lynch on Day 1 is not necessary, never is, and although at the time it seemed as though your reasons for voting off Nottingham were good, might not seem so good. I'm not chiding anyone on their performance in any way, and, whatever, the Day 1 lynch has already happened. Those were my reasons for abstaining, still are. I know that it seems like I'm just doing this for myself, and it probably would have been an intelligent move to bring up my other reason earlier, but no better time than the present, so there it all is. A Day One lynch almost never finds us a scum. It's incredibly rare for a Day One lynch to catch a scum, I can only remember a few circumstances. But, a Day One lynch is also extremely invaluable, and should happen. Not only does it give insights into voting patterns, it can (sometimes) influence the town vigilante's target. Add to that you didn't vote to save your own skin and I think my vote is locked in for the day, unless something groundbreaking happens. The Day One lynch might seem foolish because we almost always lynch an innocent, but it reveals a lot more the next day.
Lego Spy Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 After the occurrences of yesterday, and what has happened today, I will, for now, be voting for Gerald. He's had poor retaliation to "pokes" and has made several scummy statements. Vote: Gerald Haltley (Goliath) (I might not be able to post before the end of the day tomorrow, but I might be able to post from a mobile device if I can figure it out...) Whoops. Misspelled Hatley's name. Unvote: Gerald Haltley (Goliath) Vote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath)
def Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Split votes... Very interesting. Five for Jacob, five for Hatley. Is there a chance that scum are trying to save Jacob?
badboytje88 Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Split votes... Very interesting. Five for Jacob, five for Hatley. Is there a chance that scum are trying to save Jacob? That sure sounds interesting. I'm inclined to believe you are not Octan. Not sure if that makes you a Loyal or a third party. Lynching either one of you sure would answer some questions but it sure as hell would raise a lot more. I'm sticking to Jacob. Cause without a day 1 lynch day 2 feels just like day 1 minus a few people who got killed during the night.
StickFig Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Split votes... Very interesting. Five for Jacob, five for Hatley. Is there a chance that scum are trying to save Jacob? Well, since at least one of the votes against Representative Hatley is yours, should we all be asking you to defend it? In any case, I'm very interested that Representative Palacios hasn't voted yet, but then again neither have Representatives Teichman, Rutherford, or Hatley....
Mencot Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Oh snap! you caught me! I voted for the same person for different reason so I'm scum; lynch me! always sounds great but maybe not this time Well, since at least one of the votes against Representative Hatley is yours, should we all be asking you to defend it? In any case, I'm very interested that Representative Palacios hasn't voted yet, but then again neither have Representatives Teichman, Rutherford, or Hatley.... Mr Dixon has put both his votes on Mr Hatley. Does Mr Dixon have more to include to your last comment, what kind of thoughts do you have. Ofcourse the scum will team up on both lynch candidates but who or then both are town. Of those two if I could vote I would go for Jacob! Gerald has been more vocal both days, but he is kinda new and some of the (mafia) rules doesn´t seem to be so clear. But he has gotten better from the last game. Jacob then again, don´t know about him, never worked/played with him before so don´t know his style. There is many kinds of quiet and to my experience that kind of quiet Jacob is could be trying to fly under the radar, but i can be wrong. Like to hear more from both.
def Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Well, since at least one of the votes against Representative Hatley is yours, should we all be asking you to defend it? In any case, I'm very interested that Representative Palacios hasn't voted yet, but then again neither have Representatives Teichman, Rutherford, or Hatley.... I was the first vote, for reasons stated. As much as I like to pretend I'm intelligent and influential, my reason to be suss on Hatley is in no way air tight. I don't need to defend anything since I couldn't know a bunch of others would follow me. At the same time, three other votes isn't overwhelming proof either. It could just be evidence of sheep behavior. But, between the two, if someone were being saved, it would be Jacob. I think his lynch will tell us more and is a safer gamble. Or at least teach us a lesson about the dangers of bandwagoning. Unvote: Goliath (Hatley) Vote: JackJonespaw (Jacob Palacios)
StickFig Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Well, I could follow you again and exhibit some sheep behavior, but at this point there's still some time left and I'd like to see some of the others vote, especially Representative Hatley.
def Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 I would urge you to follow your best judgment. I think it will look incredibly bad for the three who voted for Hatley if Jacob is scum. It's a chance, but we can only work with the facts we have.
MagPiesRUs Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Although Hatley has been a little jumpy and his accusations against Dixon were rather weak, he has at least shown some passion and interest in the day's proceedings. Rep. Palacios on the other hand has been too detached for me, more interested in self-preservation than catching scum. Vote: Jackjonespaw (Jacob Palacios)
Scaevola Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Ok, here we go. My reasons for not voting were, I felt, justified - not only trying to preserve my personal reputation, which, in hind sight, obviously, was a move that didn't settle too well with you all; but also trying to keep our Loyal numbers up. A lynch on Day 1 is not necessary, never is, and although at the time it seemed as though your reasons for voting off Nottingham were good, might not seem so good. I'm not chiding anyone on their performance in any way, and, whatever, the Day 1 lynch has already happened. Those were my reasons for abstaining, still are. I know that it seems like I'm just doing this for myself, and it probably would have been an intelligent move to bring up my other reason earlier, but no better time than the present, so there it all is. Ah, whoops, didn't meant to quote Rep. Benedict Oh a day one lynch is not necessary. Better to repeat the unfounded speculation and conflict of Day 1 . We should have given the scum killer another freebie
mostlytechnic Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Ah, time to get to work. I'll start with Vote: JackJonespaw (Jacob Palacios) As I've said, Rep. Hatley's behavior is a bit jumpy as someone else called it, but that's how I've seen him before. So it's not pinging my scumdar just yet. Split votes... Very interesting. Five for Jacob, five for Hatley. Is there a chance that scum are trying to save Jacob? Just for the record, since several people have jumped to vote Jacob since you said this (including myself)... it'll look very bad for the speaker and several voters if Jacob turns up loyal and we find that Hatley was scum down the road.
Lady K Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Ok, here we go. My reasons for not voting were, I felt, justified - not only trying to preserve my personal reputation, which, in hind sight, obviously, was a move that didn't settle too well with you all; but also trying to keep our Loyal numbers up. A lynch on Day 1 is not necessary, never is, and although at the time it seemed as though your reasons for voting off Nottingham were good, might not seem so good. I'm not chiding anyone on their performance in any way, and, whatever, the Day 1 lynch has already happened. Those were my reasons for abstaining, still are. I know that it seems like I'm just doing this for myself, and it probably would have been an intelligent move to bring up my other reason earlier, but no better time than the present, so there it all is. Ah, whoops, didn't meant to quote Rep. Benedict As others have stated, a Day 1 lynch almost always is an innocent townie. It really can't be avoided. With that and the night 1 actions of scum and the vig it's not unusual to lose more than one townie, so a no lynch choice won't keep our town numbers up. I was the first vote, for reasons stated. As much as I like to pretend I'm intelligent and influential, my reason to be suss on Hatley is in no way air tight. I don't need to defend anything since I couldn't know a bunch of others would follow me. At the same time, three other votes isn't overwhelming proof either. It could just be evidence of sheep behavior. But, between the two, if someone were being saved, it would be Jacob. I think his lynch will tell us more and is a safer gamble. Or at least teach us a lesson about the dangers of bandwagoning. Unvote: Goliath (Hatley) Vote: JackJonespaw (Jacob Palacios) We all know the dangers of bandwagoning, it's a risk. With a 6-4 vote now for Palacios-Hatley, only 2 votes needed for a lynch. I will keep my vote where it is due to the fact that Hatley is at least participating more. I will still watch Hatley, Laughlin, and Benedict. My apologies, I believe we are now at 8 for Palacios. I was posting when the others came in.
def Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Just for the record, since several people have jumped to vote Jacob since you said this (including myself)... it'll look very bad for the speaker and several voters if Jacob turns up loyal and we find that Hatley was scum down the road. Really? You think there's some chance that my argument with Hatley was staged, and that I'm rescuing him now? Wow. That's a lot of paranoia you have. But point taken, Hatley's rants at me could be an elaborate ruse to throw you off my trail.
Yzalirk Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Don't think you're off the hook for my vote, Representative Palacios; there are 22 hours left but Representative Hatley has been a little too loud lately. Best reason, end 2014. Great job for the most rediculous reason. But I'll vote: Vote: JackJonespaw (Jacob Palacios) Because he's only had two posts on this day which makes me believe he's trying to avoid detection from other players. If you truly are a Loyalist, you should have nothing to hide. I know I talk to much but that's how I am, even my last game. But I turned out to be innocent. Still, you guys may not believe me, of course, since we're all paranoid and it's Day Two so it's kind of hard to tell. Now, before you guys say my vote is for the bandwagon, it's not. I feel everyone should participate because that's what we all agreed to before coming here. One post every real day is a bit pathetic, if you ask me and shouldn't cut it. I understand people are busy with life but everyone can take that little bit of time to post one thing to contribute. Now if I were with Octan, wouldn't you think I'd be less talkative? I'd think so since that's usually how most scum players are from what I've seen. But if I do get impeached and you guys will see my innocence, I hope you guys feel a bit foolish if you are a Loyalist like myself.
Yzalirk Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Because he's only had TWO POSTS this day? And because I think he's hiding something because of that? Can you please explain to me why I shouldn't believe he's scum? Please, I'm very curious right now. And apparently everyone else is bandwagoning, right? Or just me? Wakey-wakey hands of snakely! Hello, am I the only one who thinks that's a bit suspicious to say the least?
Recommended Posts