Lady K
-
Posts
2,267 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Everything posted by Lady K
-
Ok, but I was asking for your reasons from yesterday restated here for us to see. As for the end of day 1 of the trial, here is what it looked like: Final Vote Count: 4 votes for Harry Oldman (fhomess): Tariq j, LegoMonorailFan, Umbra-Manis, Forresto 3 votes for Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan): KotZ, Drunknok, Lady K 3 votes for Cathy Bridger (Drunknok): jluck, Kintober, Khscarymovie4 1 vote for Stephanie Diaz (Lady K): Kwatchi 1 vote for Dez Hunter (Forresto): Fhomess Nonvoting (0): So Tony is saying several others found Cathy suspicious. I see three here that three voted for Cathy; Amanda (who has been quiet all day) and Gary do you both still find Cathy's behavior from yesterday suspicious?
-
True the alliance won't change, however we don't know if how she acted was due to being new or due to alliance. I'm not sure four fluffy posts (as you pointed out yesterday) is enough to go on for suspicious behavior; after all that is typical Day 1 of the trial. Maybe you could elaborate for us on why you are still suspicious of Cathy.
-
With Cathy dismissed due to illness why would you still be suspicious of her? Tina has been quiet today, but so has Amanda. What are your thoughts about yesterday's conversations? Tina and Amanda, any thoughts for us?
-
Any thoughts about yesterday's conversations or lack of scum kill last night? I know this is your first day of jury duty; what are your thoughts so far on the trial and crime family members kidding amongst us? Much later in the trail would make more sense to me for scum to use that action. Thank you for clearing that up. I understand what you were comparing now. Thank you for clarifying. I agree that a wise vigilante won't kill night one due to the kill almost always being an innocent townie; however I don't see why town wouldn't have one. We should know in another night or two.
-
A cute little outpost! I really like the shape of it and all the details. Nicely done.
-
So what do you take away from yesterday's conversations? That's a rather in-depth thought for this early in the game. What makes you think scum would choose to recruit night one instead of kill? I seem to recall in my studies at school that this sort of thing would happen much later in the game after several investigations to clear townies. Again, why would the scum recruit so early before investigations could be done to clear jury members? Also why do you think the blocker/protector would have a better chance of stopping a kill now vs say later when there are fewer jury members left? This feels off to me somehow........ Why do you feel as there might not be a town vigilante? Could you clarify what you mean please?
-
It is uncommon and not wise to reveal any roles here in the trail day thread; as you stated that person would then become a target. I am thankful the town blocker was successful last night; please do not reveal yourself here. Eventually the town will come together privately. It is too early to determine a third-party. I merely brought it up yesterday and then explained my reasoning (more than once) as remembering a previous encounter in a forest a long time ago; brought on by an off hand comment from another jury member.
-
The problem with this school of thought is that more than likely an innocent townie would have been lynched. Sure we know one loyalty but we would also lose a value townie vote. Sure we can then look at voting; but Day 1 is always a dice roll. We still do have all the conversations from yesterday, as well as who voted for who, and who switch votes and why to look at for possible clues for today. I feel better with no lynch yesterday and no loss of a townie last night. I think it is more likely your second point and that the scum kill was blocked last night. It doesn't make sense for the scum to not kill night one.
-
Trial by Jury - Confirmation and Discussion
Lady K replied to mediumsnowman's topic in LEGO Mafia and Role-Play Games
Sorry to hear your not feeling well, hope you will be feeling better soon. And I also hope that you had some fun and will join more games in the future. -
Well, Day 2 of the trial is here and the good news is we didn't lose any good law abiding town citizens last night. And.....we still have crime family members amongst us.
-
As it stands it looks like we will have a no-lynch today. How does everyone else feel about that?
-
First let me ask you a question: Why do you keep brining up Gary? He asked me for clarification, I gave it, he accepted it, and we have moved on. Clarification for you: 1. Its called referring to a previous game. Yes there was a forest, and a SK who won in the end; so I was merely remembering the past when out of the blue Clifford made a statement of a tree falling on someone and killing them. We have gotten past that as well, if you had been keeping up with the conversations going you would know that. 2. I never raised suspicion about Dez, Tina, Brock, and Tony. I merely stated they had been quiet at the time; also something I have cleared up with Gary, go back and read that conversation again. 3. Finally, I am not defensive about the third party suggestion.....maybe you need to read again to keep up with the various conversations going. It was a one time thought, a conversation was had about it. I gave an explanation for my reasons. I have no problem clarifying my thoughts for anyone who wishes to ask. Does this clear things up for you?
-
So I asked for your back-up to where I have specifically discounted other players reasons for voting and manipulation conversations through coercion and you give this as your response: You state that due to your not being able to get the multi-quote to work, everyone has to go back on their own to find what you are trying to reference.....how are we supposed to know what you are thinking or how you interpret something? It is up to you to find and explain your thoughts on what you find suspicious so that we all understand where you are coming from. Nothing you have given here gives the specific situations to validate your point. Most of it doesn't even make any sense. Simply put you are trying to say that I have said things that I haven't. You are correct that it is right there for all to see that I have in fact not threatened you in any way. In addition I have not manipulated or used coercion on anyone. And for the record I am not pushing for a lynch or pushing for no-lynch today. Oh, and you still have not provided clarification on where you think I threatened, coerced, or manipulated anyone.
-
I didn't ask about your voting me. I asked about you stating you would switch your vote to seal a bandwagon and thus attain a lynch. without any reasons against the person you would be voting for. If you feel that strong against me then why would you switch so easily just to seal a lynch for today? As for the reason you have now stated on why your vote is on me please give specific examples of where I have discounted other players reasons without back-up. You are accusing me of something that you are doing right now; where is your back-up? Also please give specific examples of where I have manipulated conversations through coercion? I am curious as to these claims you are making.
-
I just prefer to see reasons given with votes. It helps to get discussions going so we can find the scum infiltrators amongst us. Maybe they are maybe they aren't; it's Day 1. Tag teaming won't be obvious till the trial is further along. Agreed, if it were Day 2 or later. Day 1 is still just a dice roll unless someone really slips up in something they say. Yes, on Day 2 we would still be at Day 1 as far as who's who; but with the added Day 1 conversations. And we would still have Night 1 results to look at. As I said before we have two schools of thought and pros and cons to both.
-
Apology accepted. I understand your thinking and suspicions on very quiet jury members. I have read about cases with both shy jurors who saw conflicts between others and just didn't want to draw attention to themselves and others that had scummy intentions and were hiding. On Day 2, however, I tend to look a little closer at those who have been quiet day 1 and trying to fly under the radar on day 2 as well. Votes with reasons behind them get the conversation going, votes without reasons don't give anything to discuss. Which is why I was asking for thoughts on votes and not just baseless voting. Then please do point out who you are talking about and why you think we should have a discussion about them. This is a good discussion we as a concerned town need to have. Losing an innocent townie on day 1 reduces us by one vote on day 2. I have seen pros and cons with both schools of thought. This could be conceived as revenge voting.......just saying. So you will switch back to seal a bandwagon on day 1? But you don't have reasons of your own for switching your vote? This is one school of thought.
-
Exactly what is it that you think I am deflecting? I pointed out that Clifford was willing to engage in conversation and that Dez and Tina had said very little; I never said I found either of them suspicious.
-
Conversation is more productive than just random bandwagon votes, and we still have several hours before the final votes are needed. So what are your reasons for your vote?
-
This is typical Day 1. If I was going to "deflection defense" I would have switched my vote to you. As I said conversation is important at least he is talking, as are you, although your are more bickering with me than having a conversation. Bickering will only keep those who are quiet more so and only serves to help the scum amongst us. The idea is to have solid good conversation to bring out those not willing to speak not bicker as to intimidate them to be silent. Keep your vote on me if you want; just give good reasons why.
-
A good reference would be MafiaWiki. I read several examples in my classes, usually it involves like another secret faction or possibly a serialkiller or other. The stories (past games) are really interesting. I was referring to one about a forrest in which there was a Sk and you did mention death by tree falling so......
-
As you stated here conversation is important, I'm just trying to get conversation going. I was waiting to see what Clifford had to say to my suggestion of a possible third party. After all it is only the first day of the trial and we have to consider all options. At least he has been willing to engage in conversation unlike Dez and Tina who have been very quiet; with no initial votes either. And Brock and Tony have said very little other than to vote. Not frazzled, just curious. His responses have been interesting. Also by involving those who are willing to talk in conversation can sometimes bring out those who are more quiet and get them to join in. For us good citizens to succeed in bringing justice to our community we all need to talk otherwise the Bellagio Crime family will be the ones to succeed. By the way; the dog-piling right now is on Mr. Oldman who you have voted for. I see you posted again before I had a chance to answer your questions. However it doesn't change what I said. And changing your vote that quickly based on someone else observations or questions only make you look suspicious. At least give some good reasons why if you are going to vote for me.
-
I am starting to think there could be a third party possibility. We have been told that the Bellagio crime family infiltrated us good citizens with their family members that mean to do us harm, but could there also be another involved as well hired by Bellagio himself to make sure bad things happen to us? I have read about this kinda thing happening in my books at school; particularly about a story about a forest....and our mailman did reference a tree falling on someone. My vote stays where it is.
-
Not witch hunting; just getting questions answered, or not answered. Later in the trial, a lot of interesting information can be gained by seeing how other jurors responded during the first two days of the trial in response to questions and being called out for various comments. As well as how others react as well: case in example; you are defending our mailman on day 1....Why? And you haven't come up with a possible vote yourself yet or given thoughts on those who currently have votes on them; thus making yourself look suspicious.
-
Seems like predicting someone's death..... Worried it is his own death And wild speculation.... Well I think we need more than wild speculation and solid discussion is best so for now I'll: Vote: Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan)
-
Mr. Schauer are you predicting the death of one of us? Kinda odd thing for an elderly mailman to say when we have Bellagio crime family members in our group......