mostlytechnic

Ah, time to get to work. I'll start with Vote: JackJonespaw (Jacob Palacios) As I've said, Rep. Hatley's behavior is a bit jumpy as someone else called it, but that's how I've seen him before. So it's not pinging my scumdar just yet. Just for the record, since several people have jumped to vote Jacob since you said this (including myself)... it'll look very bad for the speaker and several voters if Jacob turns up loyal and we find that Hatley was scum down the road.

Well, let an old-timer speak. I tried that argument back in my younger days, and while it may be mathematically true (yep, I had studies and research backing that position), it's not considered true here in New Brickland. So save your breath and understand that everyone in this legislature considers not lynching on day 1 a scum move. The only reason to prevent a day 1 lynch, according to legislators here, is to protect a scum buddy.

Ok, thanks. And I guess then we'd find out who the second vote was for when the final vote tally is posted?

Read more carefully please Mr. Speaker. I used a lot of IFs and Maybes and possiblies in there. I'm reminding people that as much sense as what you say may make, you're certainly experienced enough to do that even as scum. EVERYONE is a suspect until lynched. Heck, even investigations aren't 100% proof - could be a godfather, or misunderstand the situation, or plenty of other reasons as we've seen in the past. Thanks for sharing that. Definitely more trust-earning to do so now than to wait till the end of the day and have a surprise vote. I disagree somewhat. It's a power to be used. However, it certainly demands that the speaker have good reason to make the extra vote, since if his target turns up loyal he'd be heavily suspected. On the other hand, if there's a good reason to suspect someone or if the votes are tied or so forth, use the power. That's why it's there. It just gives us something else to watch and learn from. (something I just thought of... can you please clarify Mr Speaker - is your power two separate votes, or do you place one vote and it counts twice? That'd affect how we evaluate it's usage) As for today's discussions.... some of you may remember a few months ago when our speaker threw a cosplay party. Rep. Gerald was there, and he's acting today the same as he did in that occasion, so I'm not ready to drop a vote on him yet. I am pinging on the extreme quiet of Reps. Stanley, Jacob, Bryant, and Lloyd. Heck, even Molly who was muzzled has said more than you! Quiet is scummy.

Well, as much as that is logical and a pretty good method of playing, it still doesn't at all mean that you didn't survive because you're scum.

This is an interesting new topic that hadn't been brought up yet... even without being Speaker I could see him being a likely scum kill target for the first night. Unless, as you said, he IS scum. Or alternately... don't forget that we presumably have night abilities that they would be concerned about. A protector could likely protect him, expecting him to be a night 1 target. Or we could have some sort of watcher / spy / tracker role, who could watch the speaker to see who targeted him. That would give away the scum (well, not necessarily, I suppose they'd just see that he was targeted by a certain person, but still not know if the photographer was scum or the vig). Basically, for the speaker, I see 2 possibilities. He's either scum, or he's a vanilla loyal like he claims. He wouldn't have jumped at the role of speaker if he had any night abilities, since the speaker is very likely to get caught by a photo soon. As simple as him being Octan would make things (explaining things I mean), I can totally buy the scum NOT taking him out night 1 simply because he's TOO obvious of a target and they'd be worried about getting caught.

1. Why did our speaker get so many votes so fast? Would the Octanites really have thrown themselves together like that? Or was it just a case of sheep following a known name? I'm sorta leaning towards the second. 2. A potential theory. If our Speaker be Octan, then I'd suggest that J Leroy King was the Octan victim and Winifred was the vig's target. Early on, King was not supportive of our Speaker and cautioned people against trusting too much. So it could be that they wanted to silence his voice of reason and caution.

<thumping the podium for effect, because I'm old and like to thump things> I want to hear from EVERYONE! We had a terrible day 1 and things need explained. Why was our vig killing off taking pictures of a loyal townie? And which one did the vig go after? The old timers are dropping like flies and I'm afraid for what day 2 will bring. And some specific questions: Molly Callaghan, why did you not vote? I'm disappointed in Carol not voting before she was impeached, but you? Shirking your duties? That should be impeachment right there! Addie Tremain, why did you waste your vote like that? Especially with you having been the second potential impeachee, I would have expected you to jump on the Carol train! Hrumph. </thumping>

And here I was looking forward to the game getting crazy, seeing as how my son has the flu and I think I might as well. Who knows what crazy I could have posted while ill!

Thanks for mentioning the conclusion here - since you posted it by editing the last post, EB didn't mark the thread as having a new post and I hadn't noticed it!

As a point of order, Jack Jonespaw also abstained from voting but was not listed in the final tally of Day 1.

Why on earth didn't you change your vote? There's not much time left.... and as of now your vote is a waste. Are you and Nottingham BOTH scum and trying for a non-lynch here? Cause I see you wasting your vote and she hasn't voted at all today. Care to say ANYTHING at all to support your vote? Or just blatant bandwagoning? At this point, I don't like either Tremain or Nottingham. But given the late hour, we need a lynch so I will switch my vote to push in that direction. Unvote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1) Vote: Carol Nottingham (Calanon) Now just 1 more is necessary.

It was tied; your switch made it 6:4. So I think we need a better explanation than just "she is the best candidate here" - got a REASON you voted Nottingham over Tremain? There's still 5 hours and lots of votes to be placed (assuming all the other members can get off their lazy bums and get in here and do their jobs! Lazy scoundrels. Oughta lose your position here for not voting I say!)

Well, well, well... I agree that a no lynch would be a terrible mistake. So although I'm still pinging on Tiny Peter, I will Unvote: "Tiny" Peter Rutherford (TPRU) and Vote: Addie Tremain (Adventurer1) Why? Well, At this point I've now tied it up between Reps Tremain and Nottingham. There are 5 votes still unplaced, and 3 votes that are solo. That's plenty to lynch either of these two. I put MY vote on Tremain because of the two, Nottingham has seemed more helpful and defended herself better. So it's not so much a vote AGAINST Tremain, although I agree with all the other comments of fluffy posting. That's not a guarantee by any means of scumminess - it's day 1, there's not that much to seriously discuss yet. However, of the two, I'd rather keep Nottingham for another day.

That is information worth sharing. It does make your vote a bit more understandable. On the other hand, I know I often leave the thread open and refresh occasionally while doing other things, so I can't say that it's an automatic scum-tell.

Hm. So now "waiting a while" means a whopping 6 hours from the first vote to yours, during what is the middle of the night for those in the US. Or in Ms. Nottingham's case (as I believe she's from the UK), middle of the night into morning. And you're the third vote on her, always a suspicious position in my eyes. Vote 1, a poke. Vote 2 from Mr. Dixon was at least well explained. Vote 3 from you, lousy reasoning. While this may not be a full-on bandwagon, it looks to me like you're trying to start one. Therefore, I will Vote: TPRU ("Tiny" Peter Rutherford)

First, although it did seem pretty early on for Ms. Karchevsky to be voting, she did at least have a reason for it. I don't think it was a "real" vote, I suspect it was just a poke to get you talking rather than abstaining. Your vote, however, is quite baseless and simply retaliatory and a lousy way to vote in this honorable assembly. Additionally, what's with your statements of "maybe I'll vote for a speaker" - that vote is done. The only way we'll get to vote for a speaker again is when and if Mr. Dixon is expelled from this body. (and yes, I fully expect him to be gone in the next few days; no one being as outspoken as he has survives long) If I'm reading you right though, it sounds like you're saying you'll vote in today's speaker vote, but it is already over.

Love the timpani ( <-- percussionist all through high school and college, then played timpani in a church orchestra for a decade)

So the other day my son (7) built himself a tiny nativity... the only change I made was replacing a gold stud with a gold ring for the angel's halo (he didn't know I had any rings). Microscale Nativity by mostlytechnic, on Flickr

Personally, I'd be surprised if the scum went for the leader position on day 1. With the votes so widely scattered, it'd be too hard to hide. If Dixon or Nottingham are scum, I'd be surprised if there was more than 1 scum (other than themselves) in the vote for them.

You know what we haven't had yet in this legislative day? A cry to those who have not yet spoken! Therefore... Misters Benedict and Borchard, where art thou? Your districts deserve their representation! Your silence is alarming, given the gravity of the situation we face! (and yes, I in reality understand it's been less than 24 hours and I'm not ACTUALLY concerned yet...)

And this is why I went with chance. Roll the dice and pick a speaker at random from the new members. Plus I wanted to break up the pattern of everyone voting for themselves, or we'd have a 18-way tie. And this is why I did NOT vote for Dixon (or other experienced members). If he's loyal, I didn't want him to get killed off just for being the speaker, and if he's a traitor, I certainly didn't want him in a role!

My apologies to the assembly for my error in protocol. I should have said Speaker: adam (Archie Matthews)

Ms. Molly, no speech? No reason for your vote? I understand you're new here, but still, some explanation is called for in these extreme times.

Well now, isn't that a change of pace around here. Now, my constituents want are young and dumb, so they want NEW and CHANGE and TRENDY and words like that. Since I am none of those, I shall not vote for myself as the new speaker. Instead I shall vote for one of the new legislators at random. I will roll a die here... got a 3. The third freshman is Vote: adam (Archie Matthews) Now I hear tales that this screen in my hand could have done the number for me, but I like the old ways with actual dice. I trust those. (and my apologies for that extra "want" after constituents there. I should fire my speechwriter for such a lapse of attention to details. )