Excalibur TNG: Mafia School Day Two

[getdamonkey]

Vote: Greg Kennedy (Lego Spy)

Explanation in post #42 of this thread.

I'm doing this early so that everyone can give it ample thought. I believe that this is the best choice given the current evidence. If you believe I am wrong, please provide your alternative.

[Lego Spy]

Now before we start a bandwagon against me, I at least want to say that there was absolutely no private discussions between me and Isaac. I agree, that its extremely weird how closely posted they are, but I'd swear it on my medical degree that there were no communications between us.

And I'm still not sure why you're voting for me, as I was running out of time, and it was the first day, so I just randomly chose Melinda. Who Isaac voted for was completely his own decision.

[getdamonkey]

Now before we start a bandwagon against me, I at least want to say that there was absolutely no private discussions between me and Isaac. I agree, that its extremely weird how closely posted they are, but I'd swear it on my medical degree that there were no communications between us.

And I'm still not sure why you're voting for me, as I was running out of time, and it was the first day, so I just randomly chose Melinda. Who Isaac voted for was completely his own decision.

I don't want a bandwagon against you. I want a firm consensus. Bandwagons accomplish nothing. That's why I've asked others to put forward alternative explanations.

We both have background in evidence based disciplines, let's use them.

[Tohst]

Vote: Greg Kennedy (Lego Spy)

Okay, let's get this done early. For misleading quotes and suspicious timing of bandwagon votes.

In an experiment, you have to go where the data leads you. Sometimes the data is incorrect like when you don't clean out a test tube well enough and then use it again.

As a side note, I have been typing in an accent.

[Lego Spy]

What "misleading quotes" are you talking about?

[-Horizon-]

Vote: Greg Kennedy (Lego Spy)

Okay, let's get this done early. For misleading quotes and suspicious timing of bandwagon votes.

In an experiment, you have to go where the data leads you. Sometimes the data is incorrect like when you don't clean out a test tube well enough and then use it again.

As a side note, I have been typing in an accent.

Suspicious bandwagon votes! That is why your voting for him? That's Crazy! Just because Isaac voted right after him does not mean that Greg is a Purist, and if he says they didn't PM they didn't PM. And what misleading quotes? No one ever said anything about Greg using misleading quotes. Name one misleading quote that Greg did, and I'll be fine.

[getdamonkey]

Vote: Greg Kennedy (Lego Spy)

Okay, let's get this done early. For misleading quotes and suspicious timing of bandwagon votes.

In an experiment, you have to go where the data leads you. Sometimes the data is incorrect like when you don't clean out a test tube well enough and then use it again.

As a side note, I have been typing in an accent.

Willie - In order to get a good diagnostic of the situation, we need you to outline the quotes from Greg that you're citing. If they're not there, you need to drop that part of your reasoning. I'll research the issue later if you do not respond.

Everyone - please do not be knee-jerk in your reactions. Again, this is about building a consensus not bandwagoning. If you don't agree with what's being said, offer an alternative explanation. Just railing against something being wrong doesn't accomplish anything.

[Tohst]

Suspicious bandwagon votes! That is why your voting for him? That's Crazy! Just because Isaac voted right after him does not mean that Greg is a Purist, and if he says they didn't PM they didn't PM. And what misleading quotes? No one ever said anything about Greg using misleading quotes. Name one misleading quote that Greg did, and I'll be fine.

Are my notes wrong? How embarrassing. Peer review should save me, right? Let's go back.

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=95627&st=175#entry1893432 Link to the relevant post as the nested quotes go wonky

Okay, my phrasing was imprecise. Greg says this:

Hmm... adventurer1 makes a good point, where she says this for one of Emily's posts:

Emily had taken someone's post, quoted it and rearranged it to sound more scummy, then accused that person of being part of the Mafia.

Emily, it turns out really hadn't done that. She quoted the relevant part.

I hope that satisfies you as to my meaning. As for if he says they didn't PM, they didn't PM. Purists lie. So, its a wonderful catch 22. If he is a loyalist, he is telling the truth. If he is a purist, he isn't. The timing could just be suspicious.

I'm trying to run some numbers as to probability of it being nothing....I may have to talk to someone in social scientists about posting patterns and land speed velocities ...in SPACE!

[jluck]

Any vote defended with logical rational should be considered as valid and by no means bandwagoning. I also feel some votes are cast early on to elicit a reaction and thereby generate data. I, for one, am very interested in seeing Greg's defense, not because I believe him to be guilty per se, but rather because it will provide a clearer picture as to where he stands.

[-Horizon-]

Are my notes wrong? How embarrassing. Peer review should save me, right? Let's go back.

http://www.eurobrick...ry1893432��Link to the relevant post as the nested quotes go wonky

Okay, my phrasing was imprecise. Greg says this:

Emily, it turns out really hadn't done that. She quoted the relevant part.

I hope that satisfies you as to my meaning.

Ok Thanks for clearing that up.

[Lady K]

Well, things sure don't look clearer to me.

It seems we are now picking apart details that have two logical views. Having everyone weigh in more often will help us get a clearer picture of how people think and maybe where their loyalties large.

I really love all our advances in technology, except for the data pads. Still typing over what it thinks you want to say not what you really were saying! :(

All I know is I'm not casting my vote till the end! I will keep an open mind to all details!

[getdamonkey]

Well, things sure don't look clearer to me.

It seems we are now picking apart details that have two logical views. Having everyone weigh in more often will help us get a clearer picture of how people think and maybe where their loyalties large.

I really love all our advances in technology, except for the data pads. Still typing over what it thinks you want to say not what you really were saying! :(

All I know is I'm not casting my vote till the end! I will keep an open mind to all details!

We really shouldn't wait until the very end to declare our votes. It's not a personal judgement on you but the best thing for scum to do is to withhold votes until the very end of the day and then bandwagon.

It sounds like you're going to sit back and not contribute. That's a shame. If you're town, you need to help. We all need to pitch in to right the ship.

[Lady K]

We really shouldn't wait until the very end to declare our votes. It's not a personal judgement on you but the best thing for scum to do is to withhold votes until the very end of the day and then bandwagon.

It sounds like you're going to sit back and not contribute. That's a shame. If you're town, you need to help. We all need to pitch in to right the ship.

I beg to differ Jeff. The best thing for scum to do is throw votes out early, which you did, and watch for reactions and who might bandwagon easily. Seriously, waiting to vote is not sitting back and not contributing it's just as simple as not telling who I'm going to vote for.

And may I remind you that both Issac and Melinda went back and forth on things and were happy to jump on the bandwagon and now they are no longer with us.

[Lego Spy]

Okay, my phrasing was imprecise. Greg says this:

Emily, it turns out really hadn't done that. She quoted the relevant part.

I hope that satisfies you as to my meaning. As for if he says they didn't PM, they didn't PM. Purists lie. So, its a wonderful catch 22. If he is a loyalist, he is telling the truth. If he is a purist, he isn't. The timing could just be suspicious.

Note that I said this shortly afterward:

Alright, you know what, I did go back and saw what really happened, and I'm sorry.

And don't forget that I was not the one who originally brought that post up.

I apologized to Emily about my incorrect statement towards her.

[Calanon]

Well, this is getting quite interesting! I feel torn.

[getdamonkey]

I beg to differ Jeff. The best thing for scum to do is throw votes out early, which you did, and watch for reactions and who might bandwagon easily. Seriously, waiting to vote is not sitting back and not contributing it's just as simple as not telling who I'm going to vote for.

And may I remind you that both Issac and Melinda went back and forth on things and were happy to jump on the bandwagon and now they are no longer with us.

The only way we'll ever find the scum is to share information.

Let's assume that there are 3 scum in our midst.

With 9 people remaining, that means a vote with no information behind it (random) has a 2/3s chance of being cast for town.

The only way to ensure our votes are well cast is to talk about our conclusions and eliminate what doesn't make sense. If we have another day like yesterday, we're in trouble. So look at the evidence and see what you find but then discuss it with the group.

I understand why you're fearful of speaking up but it needs to happen for the good of the group.

[Comrade Commander]

Jeff, I get where you are coming from, but I am still not buying it.

If it was the other way around, where Greg posted second, two minutes later, I would say ok he was hoping on/hopeing to start a bandwagon.

and/or If we didn't know the alignment of either of them, I would say ok makes perfect sense that they would be scums coordinating.

However, Isaac, is now known to be GOOD.

Thus in my mind it nullifies the argument that they are working together since it is impossible for Isaac to know the Greg's alignment 100% (he could have been really niave and trusted a PM).

It just seems improbable that they would be talking that much, this early in the game, to coordinate votes like that if they both weren't known to be on the same team.

To me it appears that Greg voted, and either Isaac was already posting his decisons and/or Isaac decided to follow along because there was little else to go off of.

Greg could very well be scum, but I just don't buy your logic behind your arguement and I think we are narrowing in too much on it.

Does anyone else see anything suspicious (in particular that Greg did, but really for anyone)?

[-Horizon-]

Jeff, I get where you are coming from, but I am still not buying it.

If it was the other way around, where Greg posted second, two minutes later, I would say ok he was hoping on/hopeing to start a bandwagon.

and/or If we didn't know the alignment of either of them, I would say ok makes perfect sense that they would be scums coordinating.

However, Isaac, is now known to be GOOD.

Thus in my mind it nullifies the argument that they are working together since it is impossible for Isaac to know the Greg's alignment 100% (he could have been really niave and trusted a PM).

It just seems improbable that they would be talking that much, this early in the game, to coordinate votes like that if they both weren't known to be on the same team.

To me it appears that Greg voted, and either Isaac was already posting his decisons and/or Isaac decided to follow along because there was little else to go off of.

Greg could very well be scum, but I just don't buy your logic behind your arguement and I think we are narrowing in too much on it.

Does anyone else see anything suspicious (in particular that Greg did, but really for anyone)?

I haven't noticed anything suspicious lately.

[Lady K]

The only way we'll ever find the scum is to share information.

Let's assume that there are 3 scum in our midst.

With 9 people remaining, that means a vote with no information behind it (random) has a 2/3s chance of being cast for town.

The only way to ensure our votes are well cast is to talk about our conclusions and eliminate what doesn't make sense. If we have another day like yesterday, we're in trouble. So look at the evidence and see what you find but then discuss it with the group.

I understand why you're fearful of speaking up but it needs to happen for the good of the group.

I'm not fearful here. And I have no problem sharing my thoughts, however me jumping to vote early is not sharing information!

I haven't noticed anything suspicious lately.

Seriously?! There is a lot suspicious!

[-Horizon-]

I'm not fearful here. And I have no problem sharing my thoughts, however me jumping to vote early is not sharing information!

Seriously?! There is a lot suspicious!

I've noticed Suspicions, but most of them actually aren't suspicious. They are really just people getting excited over someone forgetting to type [snip] when the take out part of a post. Literally, like at least half of the suspicions is that excitement.

[Tohst]

Well, maybe we'll get some more thoughts this evening. We seem to be the 'day crowd'. People busy studying and experimenting and such. As if they are going to have tests after all this.

[Lady K]

I don't really see any advancements being made here. Thoughts anyone? There are three less of us now. Voting must be done by tomorrow.

Well, maybe we'll get some more thoughts this evening. We seem to be the 'day crowd'. People busy studying and experimenting and such. As if they are going to have tests after all this.

I suppose the live ones will have tests.

[Tohst]

I suppose the live ones will have tests.

Yikes! Morbid!

[jluck]

I keep coming up with hunches that seem to make sense but when I try to tie them to facts they seem weak. It's really difficult to recognize the difference between what's scummy and what's ignorance.

[Lady K]

Would the quiet ones care to weigh in? Of course we are all quieter now. Emily kept us going. There has to be something we are missing!?