Imperial Officers Mafia - Day Two

[Sandy]

1 hour ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

 Asking about game mechanics is pretty much asking a power role to speak up and thereby revealing themselves to the traitors. That is extremely scummy. My vote stays.

Do you think a traitor would put such a blatant target on his back? We don't know each other that well, but you're insulting my intelligence. 

I wanted reactions and to scout out the situation. If someone had been so stupid as to reveal a power role in public, that would've been on them. 

[Trekkie99]

12 minutes ago, Sandy said:

Do you think a traitor would put such a blatant target on his back? We don't know each other that well, but you're insulting my intelligence. 

If everyone assumes that a traitor wouldn't make such a "dumb" move, doesn't that make it a genius move for a traitor to do?

12 minutes ago, Sandy said:

I wanted reactions and to scout out the situation. If someone had been so stupid as to reveal a power role in public, that would've been on them. 

Maybe that's what you were hoping would happen.

Perhaps that's why Isard was killed. Maybe she saw what I see.

[KotZ]

9 hours ago, fhomess said:

I think it's extremely unlikely that there are more than one traitor among the three votes for Ozzel.  When I've previously had the need to infiltrate an enemy, my partners and I rarely were able to coordinate our efforts that succinctly as we all came from different star systems.  Personally, I still don't like Admiral Yularen's contributions.  His quick follow on to the vote on Ozzel seems like he was just waiting for someone to provide him with an opinion strong enough to latch on to.

Vote: Admiral Yularen (KotZ)

In my defense for the quick follow-up, I'm just nearly always have this browser open when things are happening as I like to be as up to date as I can, except when it's sleep time.

[mediumsnowman]

Just now, LegoMonorailFan said:

If everyone assumes that a traitor wouldn't make such a "dumb" move, doesn't that make it a genius move for a traitor to do?

This circular line of reasoning won’t take us anywhere. Reminds me of an old holomovie I saw with a princess and a man in black...

[mostlytechnic]

13 minutes ago, mediumsnowman said:

This circular line of reasoning won’t take us anywhere. Reminds me of an old holomovie I saw with a princess and a man in black...

Ah, the joys of WIFOM :) 

14 minutes ago, KotZ said:

In my defense for the quick follow-up, I'm just nearly always have this browser open when things are happening as I like to be as up to date as I can, except when it's sleep time.

I'm not that concerned about the timing - I'm more concerned about the joining in when no one else is on the table bandwagoning.

[Forresto]

2 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

A couple of things you said yesterday struck me as scummy. Particularly when you asked if anyone might think there was a "twist" to the game.

The late Isard replied to this saying the following.

You replied and explained your reasoning.

Isard replied to this saying the following.

And then of course she voted for you.

Asking about game mechanics is scummy, and I get the feeling you may have been trying to get someone with a power role to hint at something. And considering Isard questioned you on this, it makes me think your a traitor who was trying to find a potential third party member whom you then killed in the night.

Asking about game mechanics is pretty much asking a power role to speak up and thereby revealing themselves to the traitors. That is extremely scummy. My vote stays.

 

41 minutes ago, Sandy said:

Do you think a traitor would put such a blatant target on his back? We don't know each other that well, but you're insulting my intelligence. 

I wanted reactions and to scout out the situation. If someone had been so stupid as to reveal a power role in public, that would've been on them. 

 

19 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

If everyone assumes that a traitor wouldn't make such a "dumb" move, doesn't that make it a genius move for a traitor to do?

Maybe that's what you were hoping would happen.

Perhaps that's why Isard was killed. Maybe she saw what I see.

I think this warrants a close eye to be placed on our dear captain.

However I think it the height of incredulity to think even asking what roles there might be in a game is an absolute sign of scumminess when such questions have been commonplace in so many other investigations.

It's vague and broad and more to do with possible mechanics in general then anything specific to the town block.

Now the moment someone does broach specific questions regarding our town block and who they might be then i'd be inclined for immediate action.

 

[Trekkie99]

2 minutes ago, Forresto said:

 

 

I think this warrants a close eye to be placed on our dear captain.

However I think it the height of incredulity to think even asking what roles there might be in a game is an absolute sign of scumminess when such questions have been commonplace in so many other investigations.

It's vague and broad and more to do with possible mechanics in general then anything specific to the town block.

Now the moment someone does broach specific questions regarding our town block and who they might be then i'd be inclined for immediate action.

 

But that maybe just it. Asking about game mechanics is a Indirect way of asking about power roles.

[Forresto]

6 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

But that maybe just it. Asking about game mechanics is a Indirect way of asking about power roles.

Like I said its a red flag and we should keep an eye on him (sandy).

Thus far his manner has also elicited for me a melingering suspicion of his allegience.

If you think this is enough then you should vote for him.

I'm not convinced enough to change my vote from Ozzel as of right now. The latter of whom is obviously coasting in a middle o the road fashion.

[KotZ]

1 hour ago, mostlytechnic said:

I'm not that concerned about the timing - I'm more concerned about the joining in when no one else is on the table bandwagoning.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but you were hoping for a bandwagon? Or are you saying I was bandwagoning as the second vote? Just asking for clarification.

[Forresto]

There is no bandwagon on Ozzel.

The way I see a bandwagon is when a sequence of people vote for a person because others have and they themselves have no other reason. 

The three people who voted for Ozzel all have actual, legitimite ressons. 

I suspected Ozzel earlier today and the first vote for Ozzel caused me to review yesterday, which led me to also believe Ozzel is acting scummy enough to vote for. 

Yularen also has expressed his reasons. 

I would also like to note I was typing my vote for Ozzel at the same time as Yularen, but was having trouble quoting Isard from the day/topic before on my phone and commute.

[Tariq j]

First off sorry for the absence, there was a womp rat and snake infestation on Level 23, all cleared up now. I can’t quote between topics, so bear with me here.

“Well this certainly should get discussion going.  As far as the Day 1 lynch, I have seen advantages and disadvantages recently to both.  I do think it is better to have than to have not.  As to who?  Right now most are joining in the discussion....most, but not all.  I would really like to hear more from those who have said very little before casting my vote (even an initial one).”

This is one of the things you said yesterday, it pinged me because you hadn’t said anything much at the time, yet you were trying to call out other players because they hadn’t said much, even though you yourself hadn’t said much either. You then said you wanted to hear more before casting your vote, as though you were waiting for a bandwagon you could jump on. 

1 hour ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

But that maybe just it. Asking about game mechanics is a Indirect way of asking about power roles.

It was an odd thing to say, and probably what I found even more confusing was how out of the blue it was. At the point in the game we had been discussing no lynch vs Lynch, and Piett came out with that, despite the fact no one had ever brought it up before. That said though, power fishing on Day One (even if it was indirect) does seem kind of a long shot. 

[Tariq j]

5 hours ago, Rider Raider said:

You’re receiving flack because you said you would be more active and pursue a lynch today, and so far you haven’t done that.

Although Ozzel hasn’t really kept his word, at least he’s given a vote, something to go, something to discuss, but you haven’t said anything other than expressing your sadness that the director died. 

[Forresto]

19 minutes ago, Tariq j said:

 It was an odd thing to say, and probably what I found even more confusing was how out of the blue it was. At the point in the game we had been discussing no lynch vs Lynch, and Piett came out with that, despite the fact no one had ever brought it up before. That said though, power fishing on Day One (even if it was indirect) does seem kind of a long shot. 

Again not defending him but there was some discussion on roles yesterday.

I believe there was mention of a flying pumpkin that shoots lasers out its butt.

Piett could totally be scum but in this instance hes not as isolated in action as everyone else seems to be making him and im trying to be objective and factual here.

[Peanuts]

 

21 hours ago, Lady K said:

Who is saying that you are to blame?  And please do point out where I was against a lynch yesterday?  I was all for it; and even commented about how it wasn't going to happen unless we worked together.  In the end I voted for one of the choices who stood out the most to me.

A little worried about your own life based on experience when there are others of us who are loyal and have experience as well.

We did.  However, I was pointing out that my assumption was that she would be active vs passive today.

How is it off?  I point out with that many choices we would not get a lynch; I was for a lynch.  And when I did cast my vote it was for who stood out the most of the choices already there; my vote didn't add to more choices as you state above.  Admiral Daala had already been voted for you; and then you voted for Captain Fenton after my vote for Admiral Daala.  It wasn't until later that you realized you hadn't unvoted Daala before voting Fenton; which you did correct.

This is suspicious that you would change your vote after I added my vote to the same person and then the next day claim my vote added to the already long list of choices; when you had voted first for Adm. Daala.

 

Please do show where I steered us away from a lynch.

Please do show where I was non helpful and just agreeing with the consensus.   It was Day 1, I was for a lynch, and the main topics of conversation were;  Vulcans, mechanics of the meeting to find the traitors, and whether or not we should have a lynch at all.  Not exactly the best topics to contribute to, but at least we were talking.  Everyone kept adding choices to the potential lynch choices and really no one was working together to get a successful result, which I kept pointing out.  This is what the traitors want, us divided and not willing to work together to get a result.  I tried; and frankly the two choices with three votes each just didn't stand out as much as Adm. Daala did.

This is a very defensive statement, it seems to me like you reply to almost every quote with some variation of "Show me where I said x". Even when you find Captain Needa "suspicious", it's really just a defense to his criticism of you voting for Admiral Daala.

13 hours ago, mediumsnowman said:

I don't like how quickly this bandwagon is forming against Admiral Ozzel. This is definitely reaching into metagame territory, but our dear Admiral has always been somewhat... erratic in his behavior, and it's not necessarily a scum or town tell. But that's not the point - we already have 3 votes in less than an hour. That reeks, absolutely REEKS, of behind-the-scenes collusion. If Ozzel is town, at least one or two of these first few votes are traitors to our glorious Empire. 

I would be much more comfortable delivering Admirals Shelby or Motti to Lord Vader today, both of whom I raised suspicions against yesterday.

I don't see the bandwagon, it's just three votes. I also don't see how three votes would come from behind-the-scenes collusion, it would be odd for the scum to try and start a bandwagon like that. Especially because I still think the scum wouldn't mind us not lynching today. By the way, I actually wouldn't be comfortable with lynching Shelby without some better arguments.

13 hours ago, mediumsnowman said:

Either extreme is good for the traitors. Too spread out, like they were yesterday, doesn't give us any information. Too focused, as we have just seen with these first votes for Ozzel, sets off alarm bells in my Chiss brain. I find it HIGHLY unlikely 3 officers all showed up conveniently within minutes of each other to concentrate votes on a single target. Especially on one of these early days, it doesn't give us much time to react before the bandwagon gets going, giving a great place for the rest of the scum to hide in order to sow distrust and confusion while they pick us off one by one. 

I agree very much that only the scum profits from either extreme, but I personally doubt they would try to force a bandwagon early on Day Two.

10 hours ago, Actor Builder said:

Ozzel am late. 

Hello pals. I had a mega project due. I was...building landspeeders...for class.

I would enjoy turning suspicions towards our buddy, Admiral Daala, who has been as equally inactive today as out other buddy, Admiral Ozzel, but has thus far received no flack.

Here's the flack, Daala!

Vote: Admiral Daala (Rider Raider)

You are not even going to address the votes against you? Interesting.

3 hours ago, Lady K said:

1st post of Day 1

Discussion was already going at this point.  If you find discussion is most useful, why didn't you join in?  

The first vote is cast for our now departed Director.  And the reason given is to start discussion; which in itself is fine, except that she never really joined the discussion she was trying to initiate. 

All of us had been talking randomly, fluff, to get discussion going.  Yet the first vote of the day is started by you to generate discussion which you never joined after the fact and when question on your vote you then quickly unvote someone who ends up dead night 1.  

Then to vote because she has to, which is fine, she votes Adm Piett who had just been voted for by the Director.  But the reason then given for the vote is what I found odd and why I cast my vote for Adm. Daala yesterday.

My vote from yesterday.

She replied to my questioning of her reason for voting which I felt was off. Yes dead loyal Imperial Officers  can be wrong, but in my past service on other ships traitors have been caught and it turned out those loyal have been killed for a reason.  I don't discount any loyal death and look for what they may have stumbled on.  

Also, why did you feel that Dellus vote was a ridiculous push to lynch Motti?  This statement also seems off to me.

Her first comment of the Day 2 comes well after the day had started and conversation was already going; and also after voting was open.

How is this helpful to finding the traitors amongst us and obtaining a lynch today?  

I agree with this.

Ok, so you have votes against you that you don't even try to address and then you just vote Adm Daala without reason? 

And your being far more active than Ozzel?  What are you doing to help?  And do you feel we need a lynch today vs not one on day 1?

Something seemed off to me yesterday and has become more so today.  Adm. Daala has mentioned the importance of discussion, yet fails to actually join in.  She is showing up just enough to agree or make an off hand comment and then doesn't bother to say more.  This is flying under the radar and needs to be addressed.

Vote:  Admiral Daala (Rider Raider) 

Lord Vader insists we succeed today.  While Ozzel is currently on my suspicion list, Adm Daala is at the top. 

Thoughts?

Some of these accusations feel like you try hard to make Admiral Daala's statements sound suspicious, even the ones where Daala doesn't really say anything. Like, of course everyone is killed for a reason, but on night one their reasons for killing us are almost as bad as our reasons for voting on Day One. And Dellus did indeed vote for Motti, for reasons I still don't comprehend. Why does that statement sound so off to you?

I find you fairly suspicious at this point, and looking at Day One, you were also just riding along the middle of the road.

On 26.4.2018 at 9:54 PM, Lady K said:

I agree and disagree with you.  Firstly we do need to give Lord Vader good intel or....well I don't want to even imagine what will happen.  However, in my past assignments on different ships in the Empire's Fleet I have noticed that punishing, or in this case lynching, a more vocal and active member of the crew can have a bad effect on the conversation; it can slow or stop altogether. 

On 27.4.2018 at 4:50 AM, Lady K said:

Well this certainly should get discussion going.  As far as the Day 1 lynch, I have seen advantages and disadvantages recently to both.  I do think it is better to have than to have not.  As to who?  Right now most are joining in the discussion....most, but not all.  I would really like to hear more from those who have said very little before casting my vote (even an initial one).

 

These are some really 'safe' opinions: I don't like lynching active people, I want to hear from passive people before voting. Just enough that you can say you voiced your opinions, but not enough that anyone might take offense with it.

On 28.4.2018 at 2:33 AM, Lady K said:

My observations are that we do have more conversation than usual for Day 1, however we also have more accusing going on with very little to back anything up.  While I am currently on the side of the benefits of a Day 1 lynch, I would like to point out that with all the voting on many suspects we will probably have no lynch.  May I remind my fellow officers that this is the type of thing traitors will be trying to do; divide us so we can't make a decision.  A no-lynch happens and then the night actions and they take one of us out.  

With the various topics of discussion ranging from Vulcans? to what mechanics could be in play to whether or not we should lynch, I would have to say that we seem to be all over the place and not really focused.

As for day 1 suspicions of my own, hard to say, since everyone is all over the place.  No one really stands out at this time.  Get rid of the most quiet? That could result in the loss of a PR or someone who really has nothing to say Day 1.  Get rid of the most talkative?  Then we run the risk of all the officers going quiet.  And the others are all in the middle ground accusing and finger pointing.  

No I have not cast an initial vote; I will but at this point it looks like we are terribly divided and probability is in a no lynch.

 

On 28.4.2018 at 3:41 AM, Lady K said:

The problem I am seeing here is that for a lynch today we need to have nine of us, yes thats 9 of us, agree and present Lord Vader with our suspect.  However, even though 12 of us have voted; four haven't:  myself, Capt. Komec, Adm. Daala, Adm. Greer, no one is agreeing on anything.  We have ten (10) choices?    How is this going to be productive for Day 2?  We are going to have to start over.

I really would like to hear more from those who haven't voted before the time runs out.  Thoughts?

 

This is all very descriptive. Yes, at that point it was likely we wouldn't have a lynch. We all saw that. And again you just want to hear from quiet people before voting; has this ever actually helped in any situation like that? Has ever a quiet person spoken up and contributed something incredibly helpful late on Day One? Usually the contributers contribute and the quiet ones are at best marginally helpful if they suddenly speak up late in the day.

On 28.4.2018 at 5:13 AM, Lady K said:

So far out of all the comments, accusations, and finger pointing, I find this stands out the most.  While I agree with the first part (especially on Day 1) the second part about lynching an active scum vs active town is standing out a bit.  Exactly how do you tell an active scummy Imperial officer from an active loyal Imperial officer?  While I agree that an active player is more valuable to keep the conversation going, it has been my experience that traitors tend to hide, go with the group, stay out of the main focus. 

Also could you explain what you mean by an active loyal officer's 'theories aren't any more valid because they are confirmed town'?  This statement sounds off to me.

Vote:  Admiral Daala (Rider Raider)

 

I agree.  It does seem that way.  It is only Day 1;  however, in the coming days all this may prove to be useful; especially tied with the voting.

And you voted for Daala, fair enough.

I find you suspicious, so I will

vote: Captain Jellico (Lady K)

[mostlytechnic]

2 hours ago, KotZ said:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but you were hoping for a bandwagon? Or are you saying I was bandwagoning as the second vote? Just asking for clarification.

I'm saying that two more people jumping on top of my initial vote without giving any new evidence feels bandwagony. 

1 hour ago, Forresto said:

There is no bandwagon on Ozzel.

The way I see a bandwagon is when a sequence of people vote for a person because others have and they themselves have no other reason. 

The three people who voted for Ozzel all have actual, legitimite ressons. 

I suspected Ozzel earlier today and the first vote for Ozzel caused me to review yesterday, which led me to also believe Ozzel is acting scummy enough to vote for. 

Yularen also has expressed his reasons. 

I would also like to note I was typing my vote for Ozzel at the same time as Yularen, but was having trouble quoting Isard from the day/topic before on my phone and commute.

Well, if that's the definition of a bandwagon... Yularen gave a little defense of Ozzel and then said "I think the rest of your points for him are valid though. As Dellus so kindly put above me (the vote posts), there certainly were joke posts, my own included. But Ozzel did not seem to give a reason for his vote, unless I'm missing something." So that sounds like no other reason to me. 

And Shelby gave this reason for the vote: "I suspect Colonel Dellus, General Veers, and having reviewed day one, now our mustachioed Admiral Ozzel. Of the three Ozzel has shown himself the least committal to anything and the least productive to the conversation." Again, little reason for joining in.

 

I know, this sounds like I'm defending Ozzel or opposed to others voting the same way as me. That would be weird and that's not what I'm saying. My point is that I want other people also looking at what's been said, analyzing what's happening, and helping us make good decisions. Just saying "me too!" doesn't do that. 

 

[Sandy]

47 minutes ago, Peanuts said:

I find you suspicious, so I will

vote: Captain Jellico (Lady K)

Fenton, you're a smart man. I see a glorious career in the Imperial forces ahead of you. 

Jellico has been rubbing me the wrong way the whole time - I said as much - and if the others agree, he is a viable option to lynch.

It doesn't mean I don't stand by my earlier vote, but it doesn't seem to be catching wind.

[fhomess]

2 hours ago, Forresto said:

There is no bandwagon on Ozzel.

The way I see a bandwagon is when a sequence of people vote for a person because others have and they themselves have no other reason. 

The three people who voted for Ozzel all have actual, legitimite ressons. 

I suspected Ozzel earlier today and the first vote for Ozzel caused me to review yesterday, which led me to also believe Ozzel is acting scummy enough to vote for. 

Yularen also has expressed his reasons. 

I would also like to note I was typing my vote for Ozzel at the same time as Yularen, but was having trouble quoting Isard from the day/topic before on my phone and commute.

I don't really see the reasons from Yularen and you as adding anything beyond what Admiral Motti said.  Yularen hasn't seemed right to me so I case my vote his way, but you both look a bit like you were just waiting for someone to follow on with a vote.

Fenton makes a solid case against Jellico and I could be persuaded to contribute there.

I'm less comfortable with voting for Daala at this stage.

[Rider Raider]

5 hours ago, Lady K said:

All of us had been talking randomly, fluff, to get discussion going.  Yet the first vote of the day is started by you to generate discussion which you never joined after the fact and when question on your vote you then quickly unvote someone who ends up dead night 1. 

Why would I keep my vote on her? She contributed to the discussion, and getting her to discuss things was the goal of my vote.

5 hours ago, Lady K said:

 

Then to vote because she has to, which is fine, she votes Adm Piett who had just been voted for by the Director.  But the reason then given for the vote is what I found odd and why I cast my vote for Adm. Daala yesterday.

My vote from yesterday.

She replied to my questioning of her reason for voting which I felt was off. Yes dead loyal Imperial Officers  can be wrong, but in my past service on other ships traitors have been caught and it turned out those loyal have been killed for a reason.  I don't discount any loyal death and look for what they may have stumbled on.  

You are taking what I said out of context. Sure analyzing dead townies’ posts is useful, but Piett was suggesting that we lynch active townies so we can analyze what they said, and I think that causes more harm than good, especially on day 1 when no one knows anything.

5 hours ago, Lady K said:

And your being far more active than Ozzel?

The difference between my inactivity vs his is that he said he intended to be more active today, which was a lie. Most of my inactivity was due to me being asleep for most of the heavy discussion today.

5 hours ago, Lady K said:

And do you feel we need a lynch today vs not one on day 1?

Of course I think we need a lynch today, I just said that in my first post.

[Tariq j]

2 hours ago, Forresto said:

Again not defending him but there was some discussion on roles yesterday.

I believe there was mention of a flying pumpkin that shoots lasers out its butt.

Piett could totally be scum but in this instance hes not as isolated in action as everyone else seems to be making him and im trying to be objective and factual here.

Fair enough, like I said it feels too much of a long shot to try and fish for power roles. 

3 minutes ago, Rider Raider said:

Why would I keep my vote on her? She contributed to the discussion, and getting her to discuss things was the goal of my vote.

I think what Jellico was getting at was, yes, you started a discussion, but then you didn’t join in at all after it had started, so what it looked like was you trying to get an easy bandwagon off. 

That said, Jellioc feels to me like a stronger choice of lynch, her lack of thoughts on a Day One, combined with calling out others for not voting really pinged me. 

 

18 minutes ago, Rider Raider said:

The difference between my inactivity vs his is that he said he intended to be more active today, which was a lie. Most of my inactivity was due to me being asleep for most of the heavy discussion today..

But that doesn’t make the your inactivity any better, you were both still inactive, and what’s more is that you called Ozzie, for being inactive, without addressing your own inactivity or thoughts.

[Lady K]

2 hours ago, Forresto said:

Again not defending him but there was some discussion on roles yesterday.

I believe there was mention of a flying pumpkin that shoots lasers out its butt.

Piett could totally be scum but in this instance hes not as isolated in action as everyone else seems to be making him and im trying to be objective and factual here.

True there was some discussion, later on.  I think the point here is how Adm. Piett indirectly questions they types or roles/meeting mechanics so early on and especially on Day 1.  I can see how it would look suspicious; it isn't something a loyal Officer has done in previous recent meetings some of us have attended.  

1 hour ago, Sandy said:

Fenton, you're a smart man. I see a glorious career in the Imperial forces ahead of you. 

Jellico has been rubbing me the wrong way the whole time - I said as much - and if the others agree, he is a viable option to lynch.

It doesn't mean I don't stand by my earlier vote, but it doesn't seem to be catching wind.

Interesting, I politely ask you to explain where what I have said what was suspicious to you earlier and you ignore me and don't both answering and yet you respond to Capt. Fenton's post.  Which he does in fact include where I asked for clarification.  You accuse me of being suspicious yet won't provide the post where I have stated what you have accused me of?

Also you say you stand by your earlier vote, yet are willing to change to be if others agree I am a viable lynch option because your vote doesn't seem to be catching wind?  This smacks of trying to get a bandwagon going and when it fails wanting to jump on one. 

27 minutes ago, Rider Raider said:

Why would I keep my vote on her? She contributed to the discussion, and getting her to discuss things was the goal of my vote.

You are taking what I said out of context. Sure analyzing dead townies’ posts is useful, but Piett was suggesting that we lynch active townies so we can analyze what they said, and I think that causes more harm than good, especially on day 1 when no one knows anything.

The difference between my inactivity vs his is that he said he intended to be more active today, which was a lie. Most of my inactivity was due to me being asleep for most of the heavy discussion today.

Of course I think we need a lynch today, I just said that in my first post.

Not taking out of context, just wanting clarification.  While I do agree with you on not lynching active officers; unless there is a good reason to do so, I still find it curious that you would point out someone for not being active when you yourself aren't being active.

9 minutes ago, Tariq j said:

Fair enough, like I said it feels too much of a long shot to try and fish for power roles. 

I think what Jellico was getting at was, yes, you started a discussion, but then you didn’t join in at all after it had started, so what it looked like was you trying to get an easy bandwagon off. 

That said, Jellioc feels to me like a stronger choice of lynch, her lack of thoughts on a Day One, combined with calling out others for not voting really pinged me. 

 

Correct, that was what I meant. 

If you really feel that I am a stronger lynch case for today then give other thoughts as to why.   I didn't call out others for not voting; I called out others to talk before I cast a vote.  If you would have preferred me to have named names then I could have; I just choose not to. 

[KotZ]

2 hours ago, fhomess said:

I don't really see the reasons from Yularen and you as adding anything beyond what Admiral Motti said.  Yularen hasn't seemed right to me so I case my vote his way, but you both look a bit like you were just waiting for someone to follow on with a vote.

Fenton makes a solid case against Jellico and I could be persuaded to contribute there.

I'm less comfortable with voting for Daala at this stage.

Would you like me to give a better reason? When I'm finished with my admiral duties for the day I can put explain myself.

[Actor Builder]

2 hours ago, Rider Raider said:

The difference between my inactivity vs his is that he said he intended to be more active today, which was a lie. Most of my inactivity was due to me being asleep for most of the heavy discussion today.

Ozzel am Truthful. Daala am Liar.

My first post of today was literally me apologizing because I was afraid I might not be as active as I would like.

This is the first time I've had the chance to even get online today, and it may also be the last. 

Sleeping is a far less noble endeavor than academic studies. My vote stays. You are riding on the idea others have set that Ozzel is bad, and crafting poor reasons (Based on lies) why anyone should lynch me over you. I don't think much of you right now, Daala. 

[Rider Raider]

8 minutes ago, Actor Builder said:

 

My first post of today was literally me apologizing because I was afraid I might not be as active as I would like.

Wow, I’m an idiot.  I didn’t see that, my apologies.

[mediumsnowman]

Beloved host, can we get an official vote count and time left please? 

[Khscarymovie4]

2 hours ago, Rider Raider said:

Wow, I’m an idiot.  I didn’t see that, my apologies.

Are you going to vote? We are at only 24 hours left I believe and you say we need a lynch (I agree), but have not bothered to vote or even make any accusations. To me you are the most scummy right now. Jellico has also come off a little scummy today. Reasons given by me a couple post back and Fenton also makes a good point. I would be ok with lynching one of them. Ozzel I don't think is a good option as I have been on other similar situations before and he acted about the same while being on the good side. I ask that Admiral Daala, Admiral Greer, Colonel Dellus, and Captain Kormac to vote as so far they haven't, which at this point is not helpful to the Empire at all.