Imperial Officers Mafia - Day Two

[mostlytechnic]

20 hours ago, mediumsnowman said:

Any speculation as to why she, of all people, was targeted? With only one death last night it would seem probable Director Isard was the work of the traitors and our vigilante, if we have one, stayed home.

I’m not sure if we can glean anything from discussions she partook in yesterday, as a result of the no-lynch and typical random targeting that takes place on the first night in these types of... games.

I concur that there's not much to be learned from the dead Director's comments from yesterday. None of us could have had any knowledge (other than the traitors). Always sad to lose someone like that. 

18 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

My guess is that she was picked because her death might give us the littlest to work with in sniffing out the traitors. So my question is why her and not someone else? What traits made her an appealing victim to the the murderer, and who else shares those traits but was not chosen by the murderer?

I can come up with one possibility - Isard was the least talkative yesterday (in post quantity at least) other than the partially-absent Komec. And Isard has a strong history in these hunts. So if I was a traitor looking to pick someone, I'd think that perhaps Isard was trying to stay a little under the radar, possibly having a night ability, and is a player to be feared, so that's two targets on his back. 

11 hours ago, Tariq j said:

Very sad to have lost the good Director, it seems unlikely that he would revenge kill. As that would have been read into the next day (just as we're doing now). 

I'm still not entirely convinced by Colonel Dellus's voting, he votes for a what is clearly a joke vote, realises he can't start a bandwagon, so hops on to the next available one (Tarkin). 

In past Holographic documents I've read, on Day one especially, scum kills don't always have concrete reasoning behind them, but more "We need to kill someone, let's pick somebody" and it just so happens that the poor Director was that someone.  

Also completely possible, that he was just a random choice. Happened to be walking down the wrong hall at the wrong time. 

[Lady K]

4 hours ago, Sandy said:

You can take notes all you want, but I am not to blame for this. 

One thing is clear: yesterday's votes were like shotgun fire, and it must not happen again. I am not anymore wiser today than I was yesterday about the situation, but we must congregate to start making results. I myself am most suspicious of the people who were against a lynch and tried to keep the votes scattered yesterday, such as Jellico and Veers. And Shelby is still under my scrutiny for being non-commital, like this:

If you have a good theory, why not share it with us when you find the time?

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.

17 hours ago, Sandy said:

The director and I didn't see eye to eye, but that doesn't mean I wanted to kill her. Most likely the traitors are trying to draw focus on me as an experienced officer. I fear I am next in line if the scum don't manage to convince you to lynch me...

Isard fought the rebels a long time, so I believe her experience led her to her doom. I too am experienced, so my life is on the stake. 

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

3 hours ago, mediumsnowman said:

Didn't we discuss this yesterday? Since we know our dear Director Isard was loyal, and had no time to work if she was a PR, she was just in the dark as the rest of us. The only people who know anything at this point are the traitors. Knowing anyone who died Night 1 was loyal does not lend any credence to their theories. 

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

2 hours ago, Khscarymovie4 said:

 

You say I suppose if I have to vote which sounds as if your not putting much thought into the vote. You also never agree or disagree with a day 1 lynch, you just stay uncertain. I will point out however that I have seen you act like this in the past while on the good side. 

This is sort of off to me. Jellico says that having to many choices is bad and unproductive, yet votes for somebody with only one vote just adding more main lynch choices. Sort of odd if you ask me. 

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.

20 hours ago, Lady K said:

Not cool, we lost our Director last night; she served the Empire well. We better give Lord Vader the results he wants today or.......I do not want to speculate on that.

Here is yesterday's final votes.

Vote Count:
Admiral Daala/Rider Raider - 1 (Lady K)
Grand Moff Tarkin/LegoMonorailFan - 2 (KotZ, LegoRacer1)
Captain Fenton/Peanuts - 2 (LegoMonorailFan, Khscarymovie4)
Colonel Dellus/LegoRacer - 3 (Forresto, Actor Builder, Tariq j)
Admiral Shelby/Forresto - 3 (Peanuts, mediumsnowman, Sandy)
Admiral Piett/Sandy - 2 (Kintobor, Rider Raider)
Admiral Yularen/KotZ - 1 (fhomess)
Admiral Komec/jluck - 6 (mostlytechnic, penalty)

 

 

51 minutes ago, Sandy said:

Exactly. Actions speak louder than words, and even though he questioned other people's productivity, Jellico was just as guilty of steering us away from a lynch.

I really hope people will stick together tonight when the voting starts and lynch one of the wishy-washy middle-of-the-roaders.

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

1 hour ago, Tariq j said:

To be fair even if Jellico had voted for the person with most votes it might not have made a huge difference, but I do agree that her behaviour yesterday was suspicious, I pointed out earlier he didn’t contribute hugely, just agreeing with the general .consensus and voting. 

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.

[Bob]

Apologies, but voting is now open!

With 15 players remaining, 8 votes are required to lynch. 

[Rider Raider]

Dang. I feel like the Director was chosen just to shut us out of any meaningful information. We have to have a lynch today.

[LegoRacer1]

Sorry  I am late,  thought when they said the meeting is in 4B I thought they meant the Star Destroyer Forbidden. It seems that  all I missed is that we are trying to connect dots from little to nothing. Yesterday was useless! We got little to no info, today we need something. If we lynch we can look at all the vote patterns and have 1 less suspect and lots of info. Unfortunately I have zero idea who to vote.

[Trekkie99]

My suspicions are on a few people here, particularly Captain Fenton and Admiral Piett. 

I'm still suspicious of Fenton because of his opinion from yesterday about discussing whether or not to have a day one lynch, and Piett's behavior, both from today and yesterday, strikes me as odd.

[mostlytechnic]

1 hour ago, LegoRacer1 said:

It seems that  all I missed is that we are trying to connect dots from little to nothing. Yesterday was useless! We got little to no info, today we need something. If we lynch we can look at all the vote patterns and have 1 less suspect and lots of info. Unfortunately I have zero idea who to vote.

I think this is a hugely overlooked reason to have a lynch even on day 1. Yep, we'll probably eliminate a loyal member of the Empire. But in doing so, we reduce the numbers of suspects to debate and split votes over. 

So let's get this started. I will 

Vote: Adm. Ozzel (Actor Builder)

Why? First, just to get things moving. Throwing tons of random votes around again won't help, so I'll start with a heavy poke and see where it goes. If we have several votes on someone, maybe that pressure will lead us somewhere. At the very least, I'm trying to get a piece of sand in this oyster so we can start a pearl forming, or whatever analogy works better in space. I don't even know for sure what an oyster is. Just read about them as a kid I think.

Second, the Admiral has contributed nothing today. One throwaway post of sadness over the loss of a loyal member. On day 1, his post count was in the middle of the road, and he voted on one of the two candidates with the most votes. Sounds like a nice place for a scummo to hang out - in early enough to look like you're trying to lynch someone, but among a group so you don't take the fall alone if/when they flip loyal. 

Third, what did he do yesterday? A hello post, a second "I'm here" post in which he also said he's against a lynch. I think that's an anti-Empire position to take, personally. Third post, wanting to wait for night roles to solve this for us and looking forward to day 2 voting. Then a post just restating things he's already said. Then he votes for someone, even though he said he was anti-lynch! Yes, we are required to vote, but if you're truly anti-lynch, stand your ground and state that your vote is that. Instead, the Admiral actually gave a reason for his vote and seemed to be serious about it. And that was the last we heard from him yesterday.

 

 

[jluck]

10 hours ago, Khscarymovie4 said:

 

 

 

 

There you go Sandy. 

Ok, seems reasonable enough. Who would you have voted for though? Even if it was an obligation it is still something. 

To be perfectly frank with you, if I’d have voted I’d likely have picked someone extremely accusatory. Someone who tries to control the narrative is always suspicious to me, that’s part of the reason why players like Sinner and Lady K always look suspicious to me. They’re flamboyant and accusatory, keeping the spotlight off themselves. 

[LegoRacer1]

On 4/26/2018 at 8:11 PM, KotZ said:

Vote: GRand Moff Tarkin (LegoMonorailFan)

I knew the Rebels would infiltrate the highest levels of the Empire! A Trekkie here? Amongst the greatest military leaders of the glorious Empire? Absolute scum. 

 

On 4/26/2018 at 8:29 PM, LegoMonorailFan said:

Fair enough. 

Right now my suspicion lies upon those in favor of a day one lynch and those who feel it is useless to discuss whether or not we should have a day one lynch. Particularly @Peanuts who seemed awfully defensive about discussing a day one lynch, yet stated he was in favor of a day one lynch. So for now I'm going to Vote: Captain Fenton (Peanuts)

 

 

On 4/26/2018 at 10:09 PM, Forresto said:

I suppose if I have to vote I will.

Colonel Dellus (LegoRacer1) 

If only to motivate him to get involved in the conversation more.

Still uncertain of whether a Day One lynch is beneficial.

I think if we do lynch today it should for the least active, since they contribute less to the conversation, lines that can serve as clues to their allegiance. 

 

On 4/27/2018 at 1:43 AM, Actor Builder said:

official Off-Mobile Vote:

VOTE: Colonel Dellus (LegoRacer1)

 

On 4/27/2018 at 2:21 AM, Peanuts said:

So is it just a joke or a gut feeling you want to act on? Would you actually be comfortable to lynch Admiral Motti? This is a sincere question, I'm not sure what the motivation behind your vote is.

Well, we have started accusing each other, and whether or not that will end in a lynch, it's a hundred times more helpful for us than debating lynching in general. Lynching will happen or it won't.

I stand by my opinion. Only once we stopped having the debate about Day One Lynches we started accusing each other. Even if no lynch results from that, at least we haven't wasted the day.

 

I find you awfully non-commital. You haven't been inactive today, but I feel like you said a lot without ever saying much. Like, you bring up whether we should lynch, but your opinion on the topic is just "There are decent cases to be made for both strategies".

And now you emphasize you only brought up options. Why even start the discussion if you're not willing to actually discuss? At this point you only said there are 'decent cases to be made', but you don't make the cases and get defensive when someone replies to you.

After some votes come in, you follow up with a vote of your own, with no accusation, again emphasizing you are not acussing, but only trying to motivate. Still uncertain whether a lynch is benefitial.  Still non-commital.

This all seems very middle-of-the-road to me, so I'll

Vote: Admiral Shelby (Forresto)

 

 

 

On 4/27/2018 at 12:20 PM, Kintobor said:

What would you classify as special enough that it needs to be brought up at this point? If the town's power roles did know anything, they'd be foolish to bring it up in a room with traitorous ears in it.

Also, looking through the recordings of Day, I spotted this statement from you, Admiral:

So you're not willing to stick your neck out? You're fine with joining a bandwagon? That to me sounds like you're trying to fly under the radar. Please, explain this to me, because at this point in time I find you the most suspicious person in this room, Admiral.

Unvote: Admiral Ozzel (Actor Builder)

Vote: Admiral Piett (Sandy)

I would advise you to begin speaking, Admiral Piett.

 

On 4/27/2018 at 2:26 PM, fhomess said:

I'm not sure how this vote is helpful to anyone at this point.  This is a total throwaway vote after we've had a decent amount of conversation already.

You're not really commenting on how you feel about any of this stuff or what we should do differently.  I found the tit-for-tat voting last time to be quite distracting.  It brought attention to folks who were loyal because they weren't providing any insight into what they actually felt about others.  It's exactly what you're doing now with your vote, and it's scummy every time.  Anyone who's loyal should be trying to get their actual suspicions out there so others can analyze them on later days.  And no, your vote isn't the same as the early throw-out votes because there's been plenty of discussion with which to start forming opinions.  Your vote added nothing.

Vote: Admiral Yularen (KotZ)

 

 

Admiral Greer... you were talking about how you don't think vote analysis is a useful tool in scum hunting as an argument against a Day 1 lynch.  I disagree, and I think one of the points that is being missed is that it can sometimes take a few days to see the patterns emerge.  It's also important to remember that the lynch is a tool in the PR's decision making.  First, any lynched player is no longer eligible for a night action, so the lynch narrows down the list of possible targets.  Second, the vote patterns can help to narrow down that list further.  Voting in and of itself almost never yields scum, but combined with other information is quite helpful.

 

On 4/27/2018 at 6:16 PM, mostlytechnic said:

So far we have 10 votes, spread among 9 people. Not uncommon at the start of these quests. 

I'm going to further that, with a 

Vote: Komec (jluck)

because he hasn't voted yet either, and while not the quietest among the group, he's been quieter than I remember him in the past. So this vote is partially a prod and partially legitimately suspicious. 

 

On 4/27/2018 at 7:06 PM, mediumsnowman said:

Not to explicity defend Captain Fenton, per se, as he's just as likely to be a traitor as any of the rest of us, but this statement seems rather unfounded and unwarranted. Would you rather people sit back to be herded onto a bandwagon like those weird cow things on Florrum? There's a difference between actively stimulating discussion on Day 1 and "being aggressive." This also seems like an attempt to deflect Fenton's observations made about your behavior by claiming he's done the same thing to many other officers, which is simply not a truthful statement.

To follow up on another of Fenton's "agrressions", Admiral Shelby, your vote also reads as if you don't particularly care who gets lynched. If you're loyal to our great Empire you should certainly care who gets lynched. Only traitors are this apathetic, as long as it's not one of your scumbuddies getting the axe. 

Why would you further that? A vote for Komec does just about nothing at this point, with less than 24 hours left in the day. (Right?) It seems spreading out votes late in the day like this is a deliberate attempt to sow confusion and give yourself plausible deniability for any bandwagons that might form in these waning hours.

Still, I don't find that as suspicious as Admiral Shelby's curious responses to Captain Fenton's legitimate grievances, and I am content for now to

Vote: Admiral Shelby (Forresto)

Yet, I'm still keeping my Chiss eyes on you, General Veers. 

 

On 4/27/2018 at 8:53 PM, Rider Raider said:

Vote: Admiral Piett (Sandy)

I am not entirely comfortable lynching someone without any evidence or scummy behavior exhibited by anyone, but since I have to vote I will vote for Piett because of this:

Lynching active scum is great, but lynching active town can slow down discussion and might be the difference between a town win and a scum win. Active townies are just as much in the dark as the rest of us, their theories aren’t any more valid because they’re confirmed town.

 

On 4/27/2018 at 10:13 PM, 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.

 

On 4/28/2018 at 1:00 AM, Khscarymovie4 said:

Sorry if I seem quite but it has been a busy day. I looked through the last couple pages and found nothing really. I think the people who want a day 1 lynch are the most suspicious as day 1 lynches almost always lead to a dead townies. Perfect example of this is the last game where we lynched a PR, because of this I will Vote: Captain Fenton (Peanuts) as he seems to be the most supportive of a lynch. Honestly nothing stands out to me, but hey it's day 1. Something I have noticed though is that the more veteran officers seem to prefer a day 1 lynch while the newer guys don't. I have to ask did day 1 lynches help in the more early days of mafia? Because all the games I have they have not. If someone can show me a day 1 where a scum was successful lynched that would be great. 

 

On 4/28/2018 at 1:12 AM, Tariq j said:

No problem, thanks for sharing what your thoughts, 

 

My gut feeling, for reasons stated earlier is General Veers. Vote: General Veers (LegoRacer1)

 

On 4/28/2018 at 1:31 AM, Sandy said:

At least when you know someone's loyal, you know their votes and theories etc. weren't a diversion away from the scum. But you're of course right that the info we get from lynching a traitor is vastly superior.

In the interest of getting a lynch in, I'm going to unvote: Ozzel (Actor Builder)

and

vote: Shelby (Forresto)

for their middle-of-the-road coasting. 

 

On 4/28/2018 at 10:01 AM, LegoRacer1 said:

 

 

 

So it appears that my vote is getting me killed. I guess in my experiences in the empire have made me periniod and even if I know its a joke I take it too far. 

Unvote:Admiral Motti (mostlytechnic)

Not sure why some people are trying to push for a no Lynch. Spy or no Spy it helps the next day. Yet after so many people agreed a no lynch helps only traditors Tarkin still thinks it helps?

Vote: Tarkin(LegoMonorailfan)

 

 

 

 

Here are all votes from the previous day, I hope this helps us today.

[KotZ]

1 hour ago, mostlytechnic said:

Third, what did he do yesterday? A hello post, a second "I'm here" post in which he also said he's against a lynch. I think that's an anti-Empire position to take, personally.

Not defending Ozzel, but I'm slightly against this idea of a no-lynch is anti-empire. We've gone over it so many times over the pros and cons of a day one lynch vs a no lynch. It really depends on luck if someone will be completely inactive and a detriment to the town, or hoping a scum slips up be it either by pushing too hard one way or stating something that could help the town.

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.

Vote: Adm. Ozzel (Actor Builder)

[Forresto]

Bear with me, tech wasn't allowing me to quote frim s separate topic with my smartphon- I mean code cylinder.

Kintobor, page 3, day 1

"Oooh, how scandalous. Nice knowing I'm worth being the first vote. 

I find this first remark incredibly off, and I doubt a newbie officer will be lynched unless they say something ridiculously stupid. I'm of another mind than Ozzel in our current predicament. I believe you should vote and lynch Day 1, as it gives the town something to go on Day 2. Throwing away a Day 1 vote for a no-lynch gives the scum ample opportunity to murder a guaranteed townie AND hide their trail easier amongst the town. Day Two with a coordinated no lynch just gives the scum more time to murder us off. You're also assuming we have a vigilante, and a trigger happy one at that. We don't know if they'll strike on the first night, so why rely on it to progress? Besides, the vigilante might murder a loyal townie by accident, or even worse, we might have a serial killer. There's a lot of "ifs" to this logic, and I don't buy into it.

There's also the statement that Veers brought up. The implication is that you intend to be active tomorrow, but not today. I find that curious to say the least.

For the time being I'm going to Vote: Ozzel (Actor Builder). I'm not wholly convinced of his scumminess, but I'd at least like others to know that I find this behaviour at best suspicious and at worst scummy. I expect this vote to move, but for now it'll stay if only to remind Ozzel that I'm questioning his logic and I want him to stick around.

I'm going to answer this statement with another statement: what information will this line of questioning provide at this point in our investigation that can help the town?"

~~~

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. 

Where is your commitment to lynch today in lieu of your wait and see approach yesterday? 

Our intelligence director is dead. 

Vote: Admiral Ozzel (Actorbuilder)

[mediumsnowman]

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. 

As I said yesterday in response to this post by Admiral Motti: (My apologies for the odd formatting - I haven't been able to quote from old topics since the forum rollover - if anyone can show me how to in PM that would be great, since my old method doesn't work anymore!)

 

"So far we have 10 votes, spread among 9 people. Not uncommon at the start of these quests. 

I'm going to further that, with a 

Vote: Komec (jluck)

because he hasn't voted yet either, and while not the quietest among the group, he's been quieter than I remember him in the past. So this vote is partially a prod and partially legitimately suspicious."

 

My response:

 

"Why would you further that? A vote for Komec does just about nothing at this point, with less than 24 hours left in the day. (Right?) It seems spreading out votes late in the day like this is a deliberate attempt to sow confusion and give yourself plausible deniability for any bandwagons that might form in these waning hours.

Yet, I'm still keeping my Chiss eyes on you, General Veers."

 

It has since come to my attention I referred to General Veers when I meant to refer to Admiral Motti (the grey uniforms all look the same!), but the point still stands, and I still find his blatant vote spreading odd, especially at the end of the day. I would be much more comfortable lynching Motti than Ozzel today.

Vote: Admiral Motti (mostlytechnic)

 

[Forresto]

8 minutes 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. 

As I said yesterday in response to this post by Admiral Motti: (My apologies for the odd formatting - I haven't been able to quote from old topics since the forum rollover - if anyone can show me how to in PM that would be great, since my old method doesn't work anymore!)

"So far we have 10 votes, spread among 9 people. Not uncommon at the start of these quests. 

I'm going to further that, with a 

Vote: Komec (jluck)

because he hasn't voted yet either, and while not the quietest among the group, he's been quieter than I remember him in the past. So this vote is partially a prod and partially legitimately suspicious."

My response:

"Why would you further that? A vote for Komec does just about nothing at this point, with less than 24 hours left in the day. (Right?) It seems spreading out votes late in the day like this is a deliberate attempt to sow confusion and give yourself plausible deniability for any bandwagons that might form in these waning hours.

Yet, I'm still keeping my Chiss eyes on you, General Veers."

It has since come to my attention I referred to General Veers when I meant to refer to Admiral Motti (the grey uniforms all look the same!), but the point still stands, and I still find his blatant vote spreading odd, especially at the end of the day. I would be much more comfortable lynching Motti than Ozzel today.

Vote: Admiral Motti (mostlytechnic)

 

Yesterday our votes are too spread out.

Today they're too focused. 

You can't have it both ways.

Ozzel is an obvious pick for votes because he's put himself on the line claiming he'd be commited to a lynch Day two, but has now dissapeared. 

That's coasting.

I'm open to changing my vote as evidence arises since I dont think inactivity is always a sign of guilt, but for now I am committed to Ozzel. 

[Trekkie99]

Just now, 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 Emp

Agreed 100%. Now of course Ozzel being Ozzel doesn't give him a get out of Darth Vaders force choke free card, but I personally don't think his behaviour at the moment gives any inclination towards what side he's on.

As for my personal vote, I still suspicious of Fenton, but Piett may be a more likely lynch candidate. So I'm going to vote.

Vote: Admiral Piett (Sandy)

[Khscarymovie4]

4 hours ago, Rider Raider said:

 

7 hours ago, Lady K said:

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.

What I think was off was the fact that right before you voted, you said having 10 different lynch options was unproductive but instead of voting for someone who had a better chance of getting lynched you voted for someone with only one vote. 

4 hours ago, Rider Raider said:

Dang. I feel like the Director was chosen just to shut us out of any meaningful information. We have to have a lynch today.

Why do you think this is why the Director was killed?

I think there are some interesting points against Ozzel but I feel we should give the lad a chance to explain himself a little before we all start to jump on him. We need a Lynch today, and I want to get more people discussing today and there have been lots who are being quiet. 

Vote Admiral Daala (Rider Raider) 

She has posted one post today which has a weird reason for why our late Director was murdered, then say we need a lynch (which I agree with) but then provides no other thoughts what so ever. As of right now she looks more scummy then Ozzel. 

[mediumsnowman]

4 minutes ago, Forresto said:

Yesterday our votes are too spread out.

Today they're too focused. 

You can't have it both ways.

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. 

[Sandy]

I don't like that the votes are steering towards the silent ones. Sure, they make for an easy lynch because few people are against the idea of voting inactive people - and they are less likely to try to defend theirselves either. But that's just rarely where the traitors are hiding. 

55 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

As for my personal vote, I still suspicious of Fenton, but Piett may be a more likely lynch candidate. So I'm going to vote.

Vote: Admiral Piett (Sandy)

You say I'm suspicious and my behaviour is odd, but can you elaborate why that is? From my point of view I've been trying to contribute and be helpful by giving theories and names. Sure I'm opinionated, but we should be focusing on those who try to stay away from conflict and only post stuff like "it could be anyone of us".

On that note, my vote for now goes to

vote: Admiral Motti (mostlytechnic)

He ticks all the boxes: he's active enough but non-commital, does not make a strong impact one way or the other, his vote yesterday only worked towards not getting a lynch AND it was a seemingly innocent choice to vote a person who hasn't voted. 

He's not flying perfectly under the radar since our blue friend picked up on him, but still a valid choice. 

[fhomess]

3 hours ago, jluck said:

To be perfectly frank with you, if I’d have voted I’d likely have picked someone extremely accusatory. Someone who tries to control the narrative is always suspicious to me, that’s part of the reason why players like Sinner and Lady K always look suspicious to me. They’re flamboyant and accusatory, keeping the spotlight off themselves. 

I feel like you're avoiding the question.  Whether that's laziness or deceit, I'm not really sure, but I don't much care for it.  Is there someone today who looks particularly accusatory or do you change your approach on Day 2?

1 hour ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

Agreed 100%. Now of course Ozzel being Ozzel doesn't give him a get out of Darth Vaders force choke free card, but I personally don't think his behaviour at the moment gives any inclination towards what side he's on.

As for my personal vote, I still suspicious of Fenton, but Piett may be a more likely lynch candidate. So I'm going to vote.

Vote: Admiral Piett (Sandy)

The problem with Ozzel is that he was similarly unhelpful the last time we went through one of these ordeals and drew a lot of flak and suspicion for it.  One might think he would try being a more helpful loyalist this time around, but you never know if he's the type who adapts based on the past.

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)

 

On a side note... if you're going to include a whole bunch of quotes, please provide some analysis or at least an opinion of yours.  We all have the transcripts we can look through ourselves.  Without your own thoughts, you're not really being all that helpful.

[Actor Builder]

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)

[Rider Raider]

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

[Trekkie99]

7 hours ago, Sandy said:

You say I'm suspicious and my behaviour is odd, but can you elaborate why that is? From my point of view I've been trying to contribute and be helpful by giving theories and names. Sure I'm opinionated, but we should be focusing on those who try to stay away from conflict and only post stuff like "it could be anyone of us".

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.

Quote

On a tangent, do the rest of you think this will be a straightforward game... of life... or might there be a twist involved? I personally haven't seen anything that would point towards something out of the ordinary so far.

The late Isard replied to this saying the following.

Quote

I'm going to answer this statement with another statement: what information will this line of questioning provide at this point in our investigation that can help the town?

You replied and explained your reasoning.

Quote

I just like to know what I'm up against. There have been cases like this where the mechanics behind it are so out of the usual that it makes everything harder to figure out. So far everything seems to follow a familiar pattern, since nobody has yet brought up anything special.

Isard replied to this saying the following.

Quote

What would you classify as special enough that it needs to be brought up at this point? If the town's power roles did know anything, they'd be foolish to bring it up in a room with traitorous ears in it.

And then of course she voted for you.

Quote

Unvote: Admiral Ozzel (Actor Builder)

Vote: Admiral Piett (Sandy)

I would advise you to begin speaking, Admiral Piett.

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.

[mostlytechnic]

9 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 agree - I made that first vote to get things going, but I had no idea the bandwagon would happen quickly. I'm glad it stopped at 3 votes so far - I'm still comfortable with my vote and completely willing to lynch Ozzel. But I'm glad there's more discussion happening. I just want to make sure a consensus DOES form today. 

As for yesterday - yep, I split up the vote a bit. When it was already so fragmented that there was no way a lynch was happening unless a massive bandwagon formed. I decided solidifying my suspicions with a vote was more valuable than joining anyone else, when my vote wasn't going to cause or stop a lynch. 

9 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

Agreed 100%. Now of course Ozzel being Ozzel doesn't give him a get out of Darth Vaders force choke free card, but I personally don't think his behaviour at the moment gives any inclination towards what side he's on.

As for my personal vote, I still suspicious of Fenton, but Piett may be a more likely lynch candidate. So I'm going to vote.

Vote: Admiral Piett (Sandy)

Care to give any more reason here? Just "Piett may be more lynchable" is not reason for voting. What's your suspicions?

7 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)

Agree. If I had to change votes right now, I'd join you in voting against Yularen. 

6 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)

Care to address any of the accusations against you? Or just try to distract people with another candidate? 

[Khscarymovie4]

6 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)

Admiral Daala has received no flack? 

On 4/27/2018 at 10:13 PM, 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.

 

9 hours ago, Khscarymovie4 said:

What I think was off was the fact that right before you voted, you said having 10 different lynch options was unproductive but instead of voting for someone who had a better chance of getting lynched you voted for someone with only one vote. 

Why do you think this is why the Director was killed?

I think there are some interesting points against Ozzel but I feel we should give the lad a chance to explain himself a little before we all start to jump on him. We need a Lynch today, and I want to get more people discussing today and there have been lots who are being quiet. 

Vote Admiral Daala (Rider Raider) 

She has posted one post today which has a weird reason for why our late Director was murdered, then say we need a lynch (which I agree with) but then provides no other thoughts what so ever. As of right now she looks more scummy then Ozzel. 

If that is the only reason for your vote then I think it is a lousy one as it is completely untrue. 

[Trekkie99]

@mostlytechnic, I did. 

[Lady K]

On 4/25/2018 at 2:00 PM, Rider Raider said:

The traitors will not escape this time.

1st post of Day 1

On 4/26/2018 at 2:01 PM, Rider Raider said:

I am usually for a no-lynch day 1, and this game there is no different. I dislike the senseless lynch of a townie for no reason other than voting patterns that often go unused. I have rarely seen much use come from day 1, but from what does come from it the discussion is usually the most useful.

 

Speaking of discussion, I would like to start some by voting. Vote: Director Isard (Kintobor)

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. 

On 4/26/2018 at 7:29 PM, Rider Raider said:

It was just a vote to get Isard active and discussion rolling. The only post they had made at the time was fluff.

Unvote: Director Isard (Kintobor)

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.  

On 4/27/2018 at 7:53 PM, Rider Raider said:

Vote: Admiral Piett (Sandy)

I am not entirely comfortable lynching someone without any evidence or scummy behavior exhibited by anyone, but since I have to vote I will vote for Piett because of this:

Lynching active scum is great, but lynching active town can slow down discussion and might be the difference between a town win and a scum win. Active townies are just as much in the dark as the rest of us, their theories aren’t any more valid because they’re confirmed town.

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.

On 4/27/2018 at 9:13 PM, 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.

My vote from yesterday.

On 4/28/2018 at 5:46 AM, Rider Raider said:

I was tired while I wrote the second part, and I don’t think I got the point across. I was trying to say that it wasn’t worth the risk of lynching a random active player, because they are likely to be town, and that would cripple us.

 

Dead townies can still be wrong. If Dellus were to die in the night and flip town, would that suddenly make his ridiculous push to lynch Motti valid? No. Dead people can have incorrect theories, they too are in the dark.

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.

14 hours ago, Rider Raider said:

Dang. I feel like the Director was chosen just to shut us out of any meaningful information. We have to have a lynch today.

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?  

9 hours ago, Khscarymovie4 said:

What I think was off was the fact that right before you voted, you said having 10 different lynch options was unproductive but instead of voting for someone who had a better chance of getting lynched you voted for someone with only one vote. 

Why do you think this is why the Director was killed?

I think there are some interesting points against Ozzel but I feel we should give the lad a chance to explain himself a little before we all start to jump on him. We need a Lynch today, and I want to get more people discussing today and there have been lots who are being quiet. 

Vote Admiral Daala (Rider Raider) 

She has posted one post today which has a weird reason for why our late Director was murdered, then say we need a lynch (which I agree with) but then provides no other thoughts what so ever. As of right now she looks more scummy then Ozzel. 

I agree with this.

6 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)

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

1 hour 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.

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?