Trial by Jury - Day 1

[Darnok]

I think I have heard enough for one day.

 

Vote:  Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan)

[KotZ]

Vote:  Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan)

If you make a sound defense, I'll unvote you. You know, fair trial and all. But I need to get back to the forest and you're gumming up the works.

[fhomess]

3 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

I ain't gonna cast my vote until at least half of everybody has cast theirs. I have little to work with, and I'm hoping to catch some insight from others.

This sounds like you need advice from your friends ...

3 hours ago, mediumsnowman said:

Eh... it’s close enough. I’ll take it.

This trial is rigged, I tell you!

35 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

I think I have heard enough for one day.

Vote:  Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan)

You've hardly heard anything and just gone along with what someone else decided.  Have you any thoughts of your own? What about the case against Clifford is convincing you to join in?

21 minutes ago, KotZ said:

Vote:  Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan)

If you make a sound defense, I'll unvote you. You know, fair trial and all. But I need to get back to the forest and you're gumming up the works.

This doesn't sit well, either.  You called Clifford out just a few moments earlier for not voting and then come back just a short while later to vote for him.  The only thing that happened in the meantime was Cathy's vote.  Why not wait for the defense and then vote?

[KotZ]

10 minutes ago, fhomess said:

This doesn't sit well, either.  You called Clifford out just a few moments earlier for not voting and then come back just a short while later to vote for him.  The only thing that happened in the meantime was Cathy's vote.  Why not wait for the defense and then vote?

It wasn't for not voting, it was for him "ain't gonna cast my vote until at least half of everybody has cast theirs." While we need 7 to lynch, and half (6) can be divided up among multiple people, that came out very bandwagony to me and I didn't like it.

[Kintobor]

3 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

I ain't gonna cast my vote until at least half of everybody has cast theirs. I have little to work with, and I'm hoping to catch some insight from others.

Now this just sounds like someone looking to bandwagon at the last minute to blend into a crowd. This might just be a rookie mistake, but I'm keeping my eyes on you, old-timer. 

That being said, there's someone in particular who hasn't spoken up, and they really should, especially since I've already pressed them for an answer.

Vote: Jared Hartman (Kwatchi)

I'll remove my vote from you once you've responded to my previous question, which I'll kindly state again: what do you mean by this?

16 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

So, like, I think we should make sure there is no stuff on the wall to keep any criminals from making up lies by looking at stuff.  That would be, like, smart.

But whatevs.

You see, the way I see it, it looks like you're asking us to look through the Day thread images posted by our benevolent judge to look for clues. Is that what you're getting at?

[Tariq j]

5 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

I ain't gonna cast my vote until at least half of everybody has cast theirs. I have little to work with, and I'm hoping to catch some insight from others.

So what you're actually saying is "I'm not going to vote in case I get questioned/scrutinised for it, so I'll wait for a bandwagon to form and then my vote will pass easily" I can't tell whether that's a rookie error or if a scum would really say this in thread. 

1 hour ago, fhomess said:

This sounds like you need advice from your friends ...

This trial is rigged, I tell you!

You've hardly heard anything and just gone along with what someone else decided.  Have you any thoughts of your own? What about the case against Clifford is convincing you to join in?

This doesn't sit well, either.  You called Clifford out just a few moments earlier for not voting and then come back just a short while later to vote for him.  The only thing that happened in the meantime was Cathy's vote.  Why not wait for the defense and then vote?

You've made a lot accusations yet not actually placed a vote, are you trying to be like Clifford by waiting for everyone else to vote so you can hop on the bandwagon? Brock Martin (Harry Oldman)

Sorry, messed that up, Vote: Harry Oldman (Fhommes)

[Trekkie99]

All those votes for little old me? Well, I guess it would be flattering if this here was a beauty contest, but enough joking around. This is serious.

Ya see, what scum would act so obvious? No doubt the Ballagio family is a smart bunch. So why would the Ballagio family send in some doofus who'd get lynched first day on the job? They wouldn't. 

By acting suspicious on purpose, I was throwing out a line. And I wanted to see who would bite.

So for those who voted for me so far, I suspect your innocent. For now.

6 hours ago, fhomess said:

This sounds like you need advice from your friends ...

This trial is rigged, I tell you!

You've hardly heard anything and just gone along with what someone else decided.  Have you any thoughts of your own? What about the case against Clifford is convincing you to join in?

This doesn't sit well, either.  You called Clifford out just a few moments earlier for not voting and then come back just a short while later to vote for him.  The only thing that happened in the meantime was Cathy's vote.  Why not wait for the defense and then vote?

Thanks for the defense fellow old timer, but for what reason did you feel the need to defend me when I was exhibiting suspicion behavior.

Did it just seem unfair because I'm old and I talk nonsense? 

Or did you mistake me for a fellow scum and felt that people were on to me?

Your insight may help us to understand your actions, but for now...

Vote: Harry Oldman (fhomess)

[jluck]

10 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

I ain't gonna cast my vote until at least half of everybody has cast theirs. I have little to work with, and I'm hoping to catch some insight from others.

I know this'll is your first time on jury, but to those of us that'd have served a few other times this is generally frowned on. It's ok to wait till later to vote, but don't base your thinking on the crowd. Im not gonna read into it much, like I said, this is your first day on the job.

On 1/12/2018 at 8:28 AM, Drunknok said:

There is only one solution here: the scientific approach. We have to observe, make conclusions, and act accordingly.

 

So far the only fact we can work with is this: there are criminals among us, so some of us are more than they appear to be.

 

23 hours ago, Drunknok said:

I would support a documentary. We could just as well use the waiting time to educate us on something. My field of research is chemical analysis, and there is this one series - only 27 episodes, so not going in-depth too much - describing the properties of silica compounds. Most interesting!

 

21 hours ago, Drunknok said:

Gentlemen, please calm down. We have a difficult trial ahead of us.

 

18 hours ago, Drunknok said:

Men talking about "planting their wood" ... so typical! *rolleyes*

 

7 hours ago, Drunknok said:

I think I have heard enough for one day.

 

Vote:  Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan)

My current suspicions are on Cathy. She posted4 fluff posts and then voted without any reason given. She wasn't involved in pushing her suspicions of Clifford but was very quick to vote when the tide moved in that direction. 

Vote: Cathy (Drunkok)

[Darnok]

7 hours ago, fhomess said:

You've hardly heard anything and just gone along with what someone else decided.  Have you any thoughts of your own? What about the case against Clifford is convincing you to join in?

I heard a lot of baseless speculations. For a first day that is enough in my opinion. But sure, boast your aggressive ego.

 

I cast the third vote in total, with only one other person at the time sharing my vote. How you can call that "gone along with what someone else decided" is beyond me.

25 minutes ago, jluck said:

I know this'll is your first time on jury, but to those of us that'd have served a few other times this is generally frowned on. It's ok to wait till later to vote, but don't base your thinking on the crowd. Im not gonna read into it much, like I said, this is your first day on the job.

 

 

 

 

My current suspicions are on Cathy. She posted4 fluff posts and then voted without any reason given. She wasn't involved in pushing her suspicions of Clifford but was very quick to vote when the tide moved in that direction. 

Vote: Cathy (Drunkok)

See above. There was no "tide mov[ing] in that direction". 

 

And I did not see you post anything but one fluff post. By your reasoning you should vote for yourself.

Why not vote for the one person who publicly claimed to go with the bandwagon, eh?

[jluck]

30 minutes ago, Drunknok said:

I heard a lot of baseless speculations. For a first day that is enough in my opinion. But sure, boast your aggressive ego.

 

I cast the third vote in total, with only one other person at the time sharing my vote. How you can call that "gone along with what someone else decided" is beyond me.

See above. There was no "tide mov[ing] in that direction". 

 

And I did not see you post anything but one fluff post. By your reasoning you should vote for yourself.

Why not vote for the one person who publicly claimed to go with the bandwagon, eh?

If you're speaking of Clifford I didn't vote for him because his actions struck me as noob, not nefarious. 

Im not criticizing your fluff posts, I'm critical of your vote with no support. I personally don't post much fluff, I prefer to wait til the game gets going in earnest but I appreciate those that do get into the roles a bit. 

[Umbra-Manis]

This seems to be a lot of witch hunting on our newest mail carrier... @Drunknok why are you so eager to stop our mail service? Do you not want to pay his pension?

[Forresto]

Has any of the citizenry not yet massed here with the rest of the angry mob? 

[Kwatchi]

8 hours ago, Kintobor said:

Now this just sounds like someone looking to bandwagon at the last minute to blend into a crowd. This might just be a rookie mistake, but I'm keeping my eyes on you, old-timer. 

That being said, there's someone in particular who hasn't spoken up, and they really should, especially since I've already pressed them for an answer.

Vote: Jared Hartman (Kwatchi)

I'll remove my vote from you once you've responded to my previous question, which I'll kindly state again: what do you mean by this?

You see, the way I see it, it looks like you're asking us to look through the Day thread images posted by our benevolent judge to look for clues. Is that what you're getting at?

((sip))

Dude, slow your roll. It was just a movie I, like, saw and thought it was, like, kinda relevant and stuff.  You need to get out that mine more often and stop playing with your stones.  Chillax!

((sip))

And why is everyone jumping on Postman Pat already?! The old dude has been nothin' but friendly.  I'm more worried about Colonel Mustard being all, like, bullying, and the scientist lady who is claiming she is like studying us without adding anything, and that creepy liquor store guy ('cuz dude is seriously creepin' me out).

I was already, like, thinking the same as the mailman yesterday, so that will be my initial vote; unless someone convinces me otherwise.

Vote: Harry Oldman (fhomess)

((sip))

I'll be surfin' BrickR if you need me.

[Lady K]

16 minutes ago, Umbra-Manis said:

This seems to be a lot of witch hunting on our newest mail carrier... @Drunknok why are you so eager to stop our mail service? Do you not want to pay his pension?

Not witch hunting; just getting questions answered, or not answered.

Later in the trial, a lot of interesting information can be gained by seeing how other jurors responded during the first two days of the trial in response to questions and being called out for various comments.  As well as how others react as well:  case in example; you are defending our mailman on day 1....Why?

And you haven't come up with a possible vote yourself yet or given thoughts on those who currently have votes on them; thus making yourself look

suspicious.

 

[Trekkie99]

11 minutes ago, Lady K said:

Not witch hunting; just getting questions answered, or not answered.

Later in the trial, a lot of interesting information can be gained by seeing how other jurors responded during the first two days of the trial in response to questions and being called out for various comments.  As well as how others react as well:  case in example; you are defending our mailman on day 1....Why?

And you haven't come up with a possible vote yourself yet or given thoughts on those who currently have votes on them; thus making yourself look

suspicious.

 

That's why I voted for Harry Oldman. Why should he defend me? Could he be scum and I tricked him into thinking I was scum? 

I'll say thou. Tina Hooper defended me after I showed my card. 

[Kintobor]

1 minute ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

That's why I voted for Harry Oldman. Why should he defend me? Could he be scum and I tricked him into thinking I was scum? 

I'll say thou. Tina Hooper defended me after I showed my card. 

Not possible. The scum know who the scum are, and we good, god fearing townies don't know who our fellow townies are. I do admit, Oldman's defensiveness is strange, but I'll also admit a bunch of this could be newbie players making choices that are confusing me.

What do you mean by "after I showed my card"?

[Kwatchi]

1 minute ago, Kintobor said:

I'll also admit a bunch of this could be newbie players making choices that are confusing me.

((sip))

I dunno brah.  If I wanted to, like, discredit someone's valid argument throwing a "he's a noob 11!11!!!" troll bomb at them seems a pretty easy method of cutting them down without requiring any proof.  Not saying you are, like, nefarious or something, just my first thought.

((sip))

 

[Unlike JLuck, I have decided to NEVER leave character! ]

[Going to by the time stamp, some people in North America were posting at midnight-2 am. Props to you guys, but I sleep during those hours.]

[Lady K]

7 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

That's why I voted for Harry Oldman. Why should he defend me? Could he be scum and I tricked him into thinking I was scum? 

I'll say thou. Tina Hooper defended me after I showed my card. 

 

4 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

Not possible. The scum know who the scum are, and we good, god fearing townies don't know who our fellow townies are. I do admit, Oldman's defensiveness is strange, but I'll also admit a bunch of this could be newbie players making choices that are confusing me.

What do you mean by "after I showed my card"?

I am starting to think there could be a third party possibility.  We have been told that the Bellagio crime family infiltrated us good citizens with their family members that mean to do us harm, but could there also be another involved as well hired by Bellagio himself to make sure bad things happen to us?

I have read about this kinda thing happening in my books at school; particularly about a story about a forest....and our mailman did reference a tree falling on someone.

My vote stays where it is.

[Trekkie99]

3 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

Not possible. The scum know who the scum are, and we good, god fearing townies don't know who our fellow townies are. I do admit, Oldman's defensiveness is strange, but I'll also admit a bunch of this could be newbie players making choices that are confusing me.

Is that a fact that the scum know each other? As a townie, how can you be so sure of that? Have you heard confirmation of such information? Or could you know it because you are it?

12 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

What do you mean by "after I showed my card"?

It means "after I stated the context of my scheme".

[Kintobor]

13 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

((sip))

I dunno brah.  If I wanted to, like, discredit someone's valid argument throwing a "he's a noob 11!11!!!" troll bomb at them seems a pretty easy method of cutting them down without requiring any proof.  Not saying you are, like, nefarious or something, just my first thought.

((sip))

Let me put it to you like this: in our current predicament, we want people talking. The more people talk, the more likely we as the town are to find the Bellagio scum and bring them to justice. If the entire crux of someone's argument is "they're a noob", as you put it, I'd find that statement highly suspicious, especially the later the trial got. 

Lurkers and quiet people tend are the ones I'm suspicious of most often, and pressing them is a good way to get them to open up. I also find anyone who withholds their vote on any day past Day One to be incredibly suspicious, as they're withholding their vote for a reason. My vote's going to stay on you just to make sure you stay around, but I doubt it'll stick.

1 minute ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

Is that a fact that the scum know each other? As a townie, how can you be so sure of that? Have you heard confirmation of such information? Or could you know it because you are it?

It means "after I stated the context of my scheme".

No, I know this because it's the entire crux of our current situation. The Bellagio's are an informed minority who know each other and are trying to blend into an uninformed majority who don't know who their allies are. This is Jury Duty 101, Clifford. 

8 minutes ago, Lady K said:

I am starting to think there could be a third party possibility.  We have been told that the Bellagio crime family infiltrated us good citizens with their family members that mean to do us harm, but could there also be another involved as well hired by Bellagio himself to make sure bad things happen to us?

I have read about this kinda thing happening in my books at school; particularly about a story about a forest....and our mailman did reference a tree falling on someone.

I find this statement HIGHLY suspicious. It's day one, and already you're making a claim about a potential third party. We have no evidence to even consider such a lead, so why would you bring this up? The possibility for a third party's there, but with no evidence to go off of to support such a theory, why do you believe such a thing is likely?

[Kwatchi]

11 minutes ago, Lady K said:

My vote stays where it is.

((sip))

I, like, have to admit I don't see what has you all frazzled about the mailman, Stephie (I can call you Stephie, right?).   Both you and him started out before the trial (ed. note discussion page) making very open statements against the crime fam., and have followed up on those to make sure we all see them.  Sure he is a bit of a chatterbox, but he has put himself out there pretty openly.  You not budging off him has me curious though, especially when we have a lot of quiet lurkers like the liquor dude and that hottie cheerleader (Like, what up girl?).

You trying to dog-pile on to someone so blatantly transparent has, like, got me curious as to your motivations.  Could you, like, explain and stuff?

((sip))

 

Just now, Kintobor said:

I find this statement HIGHLY suspicious. It's day one, and already you're making a claim about a potential third party. We have no evidence to even consider such a lead, so why would you bring this up? The possibility for a third party's there, but with no evidence to go off of to support such a theory, why do you believe such a thing is likely?

((sip))

Whoa.  Me and miner-fortyniner were on the same page it seems. Stephie is coming across a bit scummy.  Weird.  Well, I'll start this ball rollin' I guess.

Still got my eye on you though Sgt. Rock.

((sip))

Unvote: Harry Oldman (fhomess)

Vote: Stephanie Diaz (Lady K)

 

[Lady K]

6 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

Let me put it to you like this: in our current predicament, we want people talking. The more people talk, the more likely we as the town are to find the Bellagio scum and bring them to justice. If the entire crux of someone's argument is "they're a noob", as you put it, I'd find that statement highly suspicious, especially the later the trial got. 

Lurkers and quiet people tend are the ones I'm suspicious of most often, and pressing them is a good way to get them to open up. I also find anyone who withholds their vote on any day past Day One to be incredibly suspicious, as they're withholding their vote for a reason. My vote's going to stay on you just to make sure you stay around, but I doubt it'll stick.

No, I know this because it's the entire crux of our current situation. The Bellagio's are an informed minority who know each other and are trying to blend into an uninformed majority who don't know who their allies are. This is Jury Duty 101, Clifford. 

I find this statement HIGHLY suspicious. It's day one, and already you're making a claim about a potential third party. We have no evidence to even consider such a lead, so why would you bring this up? The possibility for a third party's there, but with no evidence to go off of to support such a theory, why do you believe such a thing is likely?

As you stated here conversation is important, I'm just trying to get conversation going.  I was waiting to see what Clifford had to say to my suggestion of a possible third party.  After all it is only the first day of the trial and we have to consider all options.  At least he has been willing to engage in conversation unlike Dez and Tina who have been very quiet; with no initial votes either.   And Brock and Tony have said very little other than to vote.

5 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

((sip))

I, like, have to admit I don't see what has you all frazzled about the mailman, Stephie (I can call you Stephie, right?).   Both you and him started out before the trial (ed. note discussion page) making very open statements against the crime fam., and have followed up on those to make sure we all see them.  Sure he is a bit of a chatterbox, but he has put himself out there pretty openly.  You not budging off him has me curious though, especially when we have a lot of quiet lurkers like the liquor dude and that hottie cheerleader (Like, what up girl?).

You trying to dog-pile on to someone so blatantly transparent has, like, got me curious as to your motivations.  Could you, like, explain and stuff?

((sip))

 

Not frazzled, just curious.  His responses have been interesting.  Also by involving those who are willing to talk in conversation can sometimes bring out those who are more quiet and get them to join in.  For us good citizens to succeed in bringing justice to our community we all need to talk otherwise the Bellagio Crime family will be the ones to succeed.   

By the way; the dog-piling right now is on Mr. Oldman who you have voted for. 

21 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

((sip))

I, like, have to admit I don't see what has you all frazzled about the mailman, Stephie (I can call you Stephie, right?).   Both you and him started out before the trial (ed. note discussion page) making very open statements against the crime fam., and have followed up on those to make sure we all see them.  Sure he is a bit of a chatterbox, but he has put himself out there pretty openly.  You not budging off him has me curious though, especially when we have a lot of quiet lurkers like the liquor dude and that hottie cheerleader (Like, what up girl?).

You trying to dog-pile on to someone so blatantly transparent has, like, got me curious as to your motivations.  Could you, like, explain and stuff?

((sip))

 

((sip))

Whoa.  Me and miner-fortyniner were on the same page it seems. Stephie is coming across a bit scummy.  Weird.  Well, I'll start this ball rollin' I guess.

Still got my eye on you though Sgt. Rock.

((sip))

Unvote: Harry Oldman (fhomess)

Vote: Stephanie Diaz (Lady K)

 

I see you posted again before I had a chance to answer your questions.  However it doesn't change what I said.  And changing your vote that quickly based on someone else observations or questions only make you look suspicious.  At least give some good reasons why if you are going to vote for me.

[Trekkie99]

2 minutes ago, Lady K said:

As you stated here conversation is important, I'm just trying to get conversation going.  I was waiting to see what Clifford had to say to my suggestion of a possible third party.  After all it is only the first day of the trial and we have to consider all options.  At least he has been willing to engage in conversation unlike Dez and Tina who have been very quiet; with no initial votes either.   And Brock and Tony have said very little other than to vote.

Not frazzled, just curious.  His responses have been interesting.  Also by involving those who are willing to talk in conversation can sometimes bring out those who are more quiet and get them to join in.  For us good citizens to succeed in bringing justice to our community we all need to talk otherwise the Bellagio Crime family will be the ones to succeed.   

By the way; the dog-piling right now is on Mr. Oldman who you have voted for. 

As I've stated before, this is my first trial. So I wish to apologize if I'm confusing anyone.

On that note, what's a third party?

[Lady K]

1 minute ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

As I've stated before, this is my first trial. So I wish to apologize if I'm confusing anyone.

On that note, what's a third party?

A good reference would be MafiaWiki.  I read several examples in my classes, usually it involves like another secret faction or possibly a serialkiller or other.  The stories (past games) are really interesting. I was referring to one about a forrest in which there was a Sk and you did mention death by tree falling so......

[Kwatchi]

7 minutes ago, Lady K said:

I see you posted again before I had a chance to answer your questions.  However it doesn't change what I said.  And changing your vote that quickly based on someone else observations or questions only make you look suspicious.  At least give some good reasons why if you are going to vote for me.

((sip))

Nuh-uh.  Like, saying my reasons aren't "good" simply because I have changed my vote to you is not much of a counter-argument. Smacks of deflection defense to me.  Throwing in a "you look suspicious" threat is a nice touch btw.

Besides, I am not the one who sticking hard on their vote on the postman simply because he is, like, "interesting".   Early days yet, but he is acting FAR more trustworthy than you are atm.

((sip))