Piratedave84 Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 I see your pokong me; what are the accusations lève les against me? I really have no thing to say for myself be cause i don't know what is the issue here. In terms of vote mine will again go to rep. Hatley when I have more time to post. In the meantime, please lay a case against me and I'll see to it that I 'defend'myself. Cheers * poking *levelled Cursed french keyboard
mostlytechnic Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Mostly because of what he said about to loyalist role-blocker role-blocking someone last night. I know for a fact that the person didn't block anyone last night because this person told me himself/herself. Unless someone comes out looking like an Octan 100%, I think I'll keep my vote. I want to say my vote is a bit of a since I do want to hear more from Archie why he believes there was a role-block on someone last night but I'm getting a hunch. Care to explain why on earth a supposed loyal blocker would have claimed to you? I sure can't see it
Mencot Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Agreed Maurice and another thing about Geralds comment. When have there been any talk about blocking and a blocker? Have I totally missed that or is this from a private conversation?
mostlytechnic Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Agreed Maurice and another thing about Geralds comment. When have there been any talk about blocking and a blocker? Have I totally missed that or is this from a private conversation? I believe he was referring to the discussion about why there was only one photograph last night - is the vig gone, or the scum get blocked, or the target of either vig or scum protected?
def Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Tiny brings up some good points. Stanley has been on my radar for a while, for various tertiary reasons. I would be fine with moving my vote to him.
Lego Spy Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 (OOC: Sorry I haven't posted until now, but I live in the USA, so the time when I was able to post was when I was sleeping.) Okay, the reason I attempted to change my vote yesterday are the following: 1. My original vote for Gerald started to make less sense towards the end of the day, as he made some defenses that seemed more substantial than Jacob's. 2. This post: 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. Which I agreed with. 3. I thought any other vote didn't really make sense, as it seemed like it would appear scummy. I fully guarantee that the mistake I made yesterday was unintentional, as I was in a hurry at the time, and I wasn't fully concentrating.
Adam Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Vibes are feelings people have. Robots can't get vibes, but humans do. Is that elucidated? Vibes are all well and good, but I'm of the general opinion that a vote needs more than just vibes to support it. While he is mostly true with this statement, at this point in the game it might be worth checking the post count and getting some less contributing members to speak more out loud. Couse simply by flying under you are not helping us eliminate the members of Octan. So a statement that you mostly agree with is what you're using to justify your vote? That hardly makes sense. It seems to me like someone called you out on making a baseless vote and you went through the transcripts after the fact to try and come up with valid reasoning. Vote: Archie Matthews (Adam) Mostly because of what he said about to loyalist role-blocker role-blocking someone last night. I know for a fact that the person didn't block anyone last night because this person told me himself/herself. Unless someone comes out looking like an Octan 100%, I think I'll keep my vote. I want to say my vote is a bit of a since I do want to hear more from Archie why he believes there was a role-block on someone last night but I'm getting a hunch. I think you misunderstand. I said completely the opposite. Let's take a look at the transcripts: This is the question of the day, isn't it? I agree with the general assessment that Bryant (Brickelodeon) was a victim of the vigilante. If I were a vigilante with little to go on and few real suspects, I would probably go after a quiet player who placed an oddball vote. I'm going to be optimistic and assume that this is the case, in which case I believe that the scum victim was protected. I think that this is slightly more likely than the possibility of our blocker stopping the scum photographer: it's easier to guess who might be a potential target and protect that person than it is to guess at who might be the scum photographer. I was of the opinion that our blocker, if that person is even still alive, probably didn't block the scum photographer. I thought it was more likely that the photographer's target was protected. Furthermore, all of that was merely conjecture. We can't say with any certainty what happened last night; these are only educated guesses.
Mencot Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Now that we're pretty certain Siegfried is not scum, I am interested to look back at the speaker votes from Day One... Siegfried Dixon (Speedy) - 4 (Speedy, Mencot, Brickelodeon, Walter Kovacs) Carol Nottingham (Calanon) - 3 (Calanon, Scaevola, Stickfig) Archie Matthews (Adam) - 2 (Adam, mostlytechnic) "Tiny" Peter Rutherford (TPRU) - 1 (TPRU) J. Leroy King (jluck) - 1 (jluck) Lloyd Spalding (Lego Spy) - 1 (Lego Spy) Addie Tremain (adventurer1) - 1 (adventurer1) Abstained - 5 (Bob, badboytje88, Goliath, JackJonespaw, Piratedave) I can't imagine the scum would have wanted Dixon as the speaker,and they may have tried to avoid this by voting for a less experienced speaker. The votes for Rep. Nottingham have always puzzled me a little, now more so than ever. Obviously, the scum wouldn't want to vote together, but I wouldn't be surprised if either Stanley or Sinclair were scum. I'm more inclined to say Stanley, as the third vote is a little safer than the second, and because his reasoning was simply that he had a "bad feeling" about Rep. Dixon. I believe the 24 hours of silence are now up, so I'll also be curious to hear what Lloyd Spalding has to say today. Again, Lloyd seems more interested in how his vote looks than who it is for. All his votes and unvotes so far have felt completely arbitrary. Reps Davy and Hatley aren't the only people up for discussion today. Why are you acting as if you can only choose between them? It doesn't sound like you're particularly confident about either one of them. Is someone acting anything... To me everybody is worth voting for. This was the first time you spoke today Mr Rutherford and you did bring something new to the discussion or atleast brought up a new perspective to things.
Lady K Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 That's quite the conclusion but no, you're wrong. He was already going to be impeached (lynched) either way. So, whoever I was to vote for would make no impact. Essentially, you could see my vote as a "wasted" vote. I'm a bit curious as to why you are no longer suspicious off Addie, though. You have been for the past two days but no longer, care to share? I'd vote vote for Addie but, instead, I'll vote for: Vote: Archie Matthews (Adam) Mostly because of what he said about to loyalist role-blocker role-blocking someone last night. I know for a fact that the person didn't block anyone last night because this person told me himself/herself. Unless someone comes out looking like an Octan 100%, I think I'll keep my vote. I want to say my vote is a bit of a since I do want to hear more from Archie why he believes there was a role-block on someone last night but I'm getting a hunch. Now either you have said too little or too much? Care to share more or elaborate on this statement for the rest of us? I find this most curious. Also, you find me suspicious yet you vote for someone else?
Tamamono Posted January 2, 2015 Author Posted January 2, 2015 Vote Tally Pierce Davy (Piratedave) - 3 (Speedy, badboytje88 Mencot) Archie Matthews (Adam) - 2 (Stickfig, Goliath) Bjorn Borchard (badboytje88) - 1 (Bob) Gerald Hatley (Goliath) - 1 (Scaevola) Lloyd Spalding (Lego Spy) - 1 (adventurer1) 29 hours remain. With 13 representatives, it takes 7 to impeach.
def Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Unvote: Piratedave (Pierce) Vote: Stickfig (Stanley Figurelli)
def Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 It has been brought to my attention that I was protected last night. That means a town block of myself, the investigator, and the protector, as well the townie investigated night one. Vig, if you're out there, consider contacting me. If you don't, and you kill one of these folks, well, we'll be in a bad place. And yeah, scum tried to kill me and failed. Mwah ha hah!
Yzalirk Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Now either you have said too little or too much? Care to share more or elaborate on this statement for the rest of us? I find this most curious. Also, you find me suspicious yet you vote for someone else? Did you not pay attention to what I said? Readit again so you comprehend my reason. I'll let you ponder because, again, I still don't trust you so why would I tell you?
StickFig Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 I'm more inclined to say Stanley, as the third vote is a little safer than the second, and because his reasoning was simply that he had a "bad feeling" about Rep. Dixon. What, no one else thought it was weird that Speedy voted for himself and then suddenly had a whole bunch of other people vote for him? Stanley has been on my radar for a while, for various tertiary reasons. Hard to argue with "various tertiary reasons," Mr. Speaker. I think the only one you've mentioned was that I voted against Mr. Hatley yesterday after you did. Seems a bit strange to be suspicious of people who did the same thing you did, and for the same reasons. Whatever. And yeah, scum tried to kill me and failed. Mwah ha hah! Ok, so that confirms our assumptions that the vig killed Representative Laughlin... assuming it's true. I know for a fact that the person didn't block anyone last night because this person told me himself/herself. Did you not pay attention to what I said? Readit again so you comprehend my reason. Yes, we paid attention to what you said... and it lines up perfectly with what Representative Matthews said. Given that what Representative Matthews pointed out in that very post was pretty good insight (better than mine, anyway), and he didn't explode when poked, here's a different poke for today: Unvote: Archie Matthews (Adam) Vote: Bobby Benedict (Bob)
Tamamono Posted January 2, 2015 Author Posted January 2, 2015 Vote Tally Stanley Figurelli (Stickfig) - 2 (Speedy) Pierce Davy (Piratedave) - 2 (badboytje88 Mencot) Archie Matthews (Adam) - 1 (Goliath) Bobby Benedict (Bob) - 1 (Stickfig) Bjorn Borchard (badboytje88) - 1 (Bob) Gerald Hatley (Goliath) - 1 (Scaevola) Lloyd Spalding (Lego Spy) - 1 (adventurer1) 28 hours remain. With 13, it takes 7 to impeach
def Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Hard to argue with "various tertiary reasons," Mr. Speaker. I think the only one you've mentioned was that I voted against Mr. Hatley yesterday after you did. Seems a bit strange to be suspicious of people who did the same thing you did, and for the same reasons. Whatever. No, you copied me. You did the exact same thing Hatley did. You have a thing where you follow along, but cast a little doubt. "Whatever," sounds like you trying to show you don't care, when of course you would, same as Pierce. Actually townies usually get a bit indignant when falsely accused, they often have a bit more panic. But oh no, not you. Ok, so that confirms our assumptions that the vig killed Representative Laughlin... assuming it's true. You know it's true, because you failed to kill me! But yeah, same old following along, but casting a little doubt. Now Maurice is doing a much more convincing job of doubting me. He's actually engaging and proposing ideas for me to interact with. '...assuming it's true,' is just a scum tell. We need you out of here today! Given that what Representative Matthews pointed out in that very post was pretty good insight (better than mine, anyway), and he didn't explode when poked, here's a different poke for today: No time for pokes! The season of impeachment is upon us!
StickFig Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Actually townies usually get a bit indignant when falsely accused, they often have a bit more panic. But oh no, not you. Oh yes, forgive me for trying to be logical, not emotional. You know it's true, because you failed to kill me! Actually my night action was successful last night.
def Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Oh yes, forgive me for trying to be logical, not emotional. It's a common scum tell, being over-calm. Actually my night action was successful last night. Yeah, revealing you have a night action because you received one vote, that is a panic move.
Bob Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Let me show you what rubbed me the wrong way: So, him talking about post counts rubbed you the wrong way? How? Why? You even mention yourself that he's made a true statement here, completely invalidating your argument and why he rubs you the wrong way. What about you forgetting things or just posting the same thing that's been posted just so you can make fluff posts and act like you're truly active? Vote: Bobby Benedict (Bob) Is now really the time for a poke? Actually my night action was successful last night.
Scaevola Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 That's quite the conclusion but no, you're wrong. He was already going to be impeached (lynched) either way. So, whoever I was to vote for would make no impact. Essentially, you could see my vote as a "wasted" vote. I'm a bit curious as to why you are no longer suspicious off Addie, though. You have been for the past two days but no longer, care to share? I'd vote vote for Addie but, instead, I'll vote for: Vote: Archie Matthews (Adam) Mostly because of what he said about to loyalist role-blocker role-blocking someone last night. I know for a fact that the person didn't block anyone last night because this person told me himself/herself. Unless someone comes out looking like an Octan 100%, I think I'll keep my vote. I want to say my vote is a bit of a since I do want to hear more from Archie why he believes there was a role-block on someone last night but I'm getting a hunch. The sycophantic aspect of the vote was more so your voting with the majority when you could have tendered it for another or abstained (that was poorly phrased and I apologize). The core of the argument that it was cast to better your reputation is still very applicable. As for Addie, I'm still suspicious of her, yet my conjecture was founded upon her fluffy posts. At this point, I see superior evidence for different persons. Now that we're pretty certain Siegfried is not scum, I am interested to look back at the speaker votes from Day One... Siegfried Dixon (Speedy) - 4 (Speedy, Mencot, Brickelodeon, Walter Kovacs) Carol Nottingham (Calanon) - 3 (Calanon, Scaevola, Stickfig) Archie Matthews (Adam) - 2 (Adam, mostlytechnic) "Tiny" Peter Rutherford (TPRU) - 1 (TPRU) J. Leroy King (jluck) - 1 (jluck) Lloyd Spalding (Lego Spy) - 1 (Lego Spy) Addie Tremain (adventurer1) - 1 (adventurer1) Abstained - 5 (Bob, badboytje88, Goliath, JackJonespaw, Piratedave) I can't imagine the scum would have wanted Dixon as the speaker,and they may have tried to avoid this by voting for a less experienced speaker. The votes for Rep. Nottingham have always puzzled me a little, now more so than ever. Obviously, the scum wouldn't want to vote together, but I wouldn't be surprised if either Stanley or Sinclair were scum. I'm more inclined to say Stanley, as the third vote is a little safer than the second, and because his reasoning was simply that he had a "bad feeling" about Rep. Dixon. I believe the 24 hours of silence are now up, so I'll also be curious to hear what Lloyd Spalding has to say today. Again, Lloyd seems more interested in how his vote looks than who it is for. All his votes and unvotes so far have felt completely arbitrary. Reps Davy and Hatley aren't the only people up for discussion today. Why are you acting as if you can only choose between them? It doesn't sound like you're particularly confident about either one of them. There's some merit to your argument, but my vote was merely due to feeling Nottingham would be easier to read than Dixon. Having a speaker less elusive than Dixon would've been a safe check against the then undetermined powers of the speakership. A little more effectual than voting for myself and letting the sheep decide I think The vote on Figurelli is interesting. I concur Figurelli hasn't done much but poke and summarize. He's been somewhat of a pack animal, latching onto the bandwagons and polishing his reputation with the majority. He's cited his vote for Nottingham due to a "bad feeling" and his vote for Goliath that "he's been a little too loud lately". Both after others had made pushes against/for the candidate. Care to rebut these allegations Rep. Figurelli?
StickFig Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Care to rebut these allegations Rep. Figurelli? Nope, that's all I've done, poke, summarize, and follow the crowd. If you think "trying to keep Speedy from getting elected because everyone else voted for him", or calling out JackJonespaw, badboytje88, and Bob to see what they had to say was is bandwagoning, I'd like to know what you think passes for independent thought?
badboytje88 Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 So a statement that you mostly agree with is what you're using to justify your vote? That hardly makes sense. It seems to me like someone called you out on making a baseless vote and you went through the transcripts after the fact to try and come up with valid reasoning. So, him talking about post counts rubbed you the wrong way? How? Why? You even mention yourself that he's made a true statement here, completely invalidating your argument and why he rubs you the wrong way. What about you forgetting things or just posting the same thing that's been posted just so you can make fluff posts and act like you're truly active? What I was saying was that yes, speaking a lot does not make you town and yes, by not speaking much does not make you scum. But what I meant to get across is that it would be foolish not to look at the people who are not that talkative. If you're not very outspoken then there is way less of a chance to mess up. I am note going to explain this a third time. If this answer does not satisfy you, then you can go ahead and vote me off.
Lego Spy Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 What, no one else thought it was weird that Speedy voted for himself and then suddenly had a whole bunch of other people vote for him? Keep in mind that two of those people have been confirmed town. Actually townies usually get a bit indignant when falsely accused, they often have a bit more panic. But oh no, not you. Oh yes, forgive me for trying to be logical, not emotional. Actually my night action was successful last night. Definitely not the best thing to say out loud during a mafia game political discussion.
def Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Yeah, that move was certainly not a logical one, and he seems to want to keep it private for some reason. The town move would have been to PM me and ask me to lay off because he has a night action, not to announce it in thread. We have to vote him out, there seems little better choice. This is well beyond a hunch or vibe at this point.
Recommended Posts