Sandy Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I don't think we're getting anywhere with everyone voting for different people. I'm still none the wiser than I was when the voting started (even though there has been some good arguments against some people). Even though there are suspicions, that's all they can be at this point: theories, feelings, sixth sense. Nothing concrete. Anyway, obviously people did not rise en masse to vote for Mr. Leplot, so I am going to unvote: Toulouse Leplot (WhiteFang). And since people seem to be most suspicious against Mrs. Farago, I am going to vote: Penelope Farago (Waterbrick Down). Sorry if you're not one of the cultists, I just have no way of knowing that right now.
def Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Ah, in that case, you must be innocent My apologies, but the vote sitcks And since people seem to be most suspicious against Mrs. Farago, I am going to vote: Penelope Farago (Waterbrick Down). Sorry if you're not one of the cultists, I just have no way of knowing that right now. Nope, he's at an equal vote with Mr. Goodenarde, but your 'mistake' is duly noted
Hinckley Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Unvote: Penelope Farago(Waterbrick Down) Vote: Patrick Fitzwilliam(def) I wasn't truly suspicious of him until he un-voted me. Please follow my reasoning: Unvote: Mehmet Attabar (Hinckley) Vote: Penelope Farago (Waterbrick Down) Tentatively. I still think Mehmet's and Apu's play today has been anti-town, either by accident or by design (my vote goes for the latter), but nobody seems really perturbed at they way they've been mangling the truth... I suppose when you're not the victim of it, it's easier to overlook "First they came…" My suspicion is basically that he went from suspecting me the most and voting for me to inexplicably voting with me. I explain my suspicions in this post: Forgive me everyone. I hate to perpetuate the silly argument from earlier in the day. I am certainly over the "pissing match" aspect of it. I can't help but point out something that has started to bug me. Mr. Fitzdef, how did you go from voting for me to voting with me? I find it odd that I go from your top suspect to someone who has the right idea about who to vote out. You vote for Penelope Farago and then immediately say that Apu and I are probably anti-Town, although you are now voting along with both of us. I'm having trouble following your logic. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Perhaps I'm dumb and need a smart person to explain things to me. So after inexplicably voting with me and Zepher and then immediately calling us Scum (Why would someone vote along with their top suspects for Scum??) he quietly unvotes, after waiting some time and a few posts after my accusation. For the first time today, he didn't immediately jump on me for speaking: Unvote: Penelope Farago (Waterbrick Down) Then this: Point being, the scum are hunting for certain among us, and not merely trying to outnumber us. How do I know? Oh, let's just say Ra told me Wait, what? Saying that just made you look suspicious... Was that your intention? It was probably his intention to look Town by helping us and therefore become a leader and look irreproachably innocent. He probably knows what the win condition for the Scum is because he is Scum. If we think he's "spoken to Ra " and they've told him what the Scum needs to do to win, in our eyes he could never possibly be Scum. But why would the hosts verify someone as Town for all of us that way? I would guess this is nothing more than a ruse to gain our trust. It could be the reverse psychology of "Scum would never tell us their own win conditions." He has railed against anyone who defied him all day, calling them uninformed, liars and trolls. He is right, he does have a reputation, and he would have to make it appear that reputation is untarnished. If he's a Cultist, he better be in his Town mode or people will suspect! Originally, our pissing match was a fun tactic to see how others would respond and we may have gotten a couple little leads here and there, but perhaps Fitzdef's persistence on attacking me and Ahmed Apu ( I get it! ) were to keep up appearances. It did seem odd that it was going on so long after it should've been put behind us. But, that aside, his original un-vote was extremely contradictory to all of his previously voiced strategy and then he tried to sweep that under the carpet and now is suddenly pulling out knowledge, in the middle of a day phase, that only the Scum should know. Hmmmmmm. I don't know if I'm right or not, but this is my strongest lead and the person I'm most suspicious of. Could he be a Townie? Yes. Could my suspicion be based off of my dislike of his attitude and gameplay? Yes. But I had swept all of that aside until I noticed the specific inconsistencies and behaviors I have outlined. This is not a final decree. I do want to hear what people have to say about the accusation. Oh, sorry. Helping explain our situation is suspicious. I forgot this was EB And he continues to just insist that he's beyond questioning. Forgot he was perfect
Sandy Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Okay dipshit, heres how it works. I admit I haven't participated much and thats that, but let me clarify something. What I have done idiot is that I was the first one to pick up on our Captain today, I was the first to comment on what he said in the midst of a full blown argument. So since your weak puny little mind cant remember that why dont you take another look: I dont know if you were born on Mars or something, but if that seems like me not doing anything then you truly are stupid. I have no more bloody clue than anyone else here, Im sorry that I don't know who to vote for but if you wanna accuse me then go ahead, but good luck with taking me down bitch! I don't think insults and calling names help your case in any way, Mr. Janus. Nope, he's at an equal vote with Mr. Goodenarde, but your 'mistake' is duly noted Kudos to you for being so observant, but I merely looked at the list of votes that our hosts so courteously gave us, and there Miss Farago is listed as the one having the most votes. Only now I checked back and saw that one of the votes against her was taken back. And here I was scolding the person who cussed at you...
Eskallon Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I don't think insults and calling names help your case in any way, Mr. Janus. Sowwy Now, Mehmet, you have good reasoning and I think you make an excellent argument against him. I agree with the way in which he followed you is very suspicious after you were arguing. However the thing that I had to go back and read over several times in your post was the following. Originally, our pissing match was a fun tactic to see how others would respond and we may have gotten a couple little leads here and there Maybe I missed something, but was all the chatter between you too fake, or did it just start fake and turn into something bigger? Are you two meant to be some kind of team, the way you say that makes me think that theres something going on which the rest of us are not aware of.
def Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Kudos to you for being so observant, but I merely looked at the list of votes that our hosts so courteously gave us, and there Miss Farago is listed as the one having the most votes. Only now I checked back and saw that one of the votes against her was taken back. And here I was scolding the person who cussed at you... All the same, a single vote difference doesn't mean much. You're just trying to keep yourself from having any recorded culpability. It's not all that impressive. Despite only having met you yesterday, I get the feeling you are an erratic and illogical voter I kid, I kid! Voting with the group is surely better than not voting and being a vapid potty mouth
Professor Flitwick Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 No it wouldn't be. If we can't find a good option for voting, then we shouldn't vote at all. It's that simple. A random vote is just asking for trouble. That way you have just as good a chance of pulling the name of a hardworking and proactive townie (or even worse, a Nocturnal Skiller) as you do a chance of pulling the name of someone inactive and useless. Baa-haa-haa! I know it is a certain way to nab a cultist, I did say it was 6/24 chances! Oh, and don't forget my little filly, that just because someone is active, it doesn't automatically mean they're innocent. You know, captain, that was pretty early on in the day, and there was no need for you to actually accuse someone at that point. You make it sound like the only options were A. responding to the ego war between Mehmet and Patrick, B. Suggesting a vote on someone for a trivial reason, or C. suggesting a random vote. This is not true. There were plenty of other things you could have added to the discussion. Take, for instance, the discussion of the cultists' goal by William and Ophelia. You could tried to add something to that discussion. Or, if need be, you could have just said nothing, like many others were doing at the time. If you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything at all. You must have some sort of opinion concerning the other suspects, and one little gut feeling of an opinion is always better than a random vote. Unless, of course, you're Scum and don't have an opinion because you already know who's Scum. Baa-haa-haa! Who would take any non-committed statement, or worse still, not speaking, with anything other than suspicion. Okay dipshit, heres how it works. I admit I haven't participated much and thats that, but let me clarify something. What I have done idiot is that I was the first one to pick up on our Captain today, I was the first to comment on what he said in the midst of a full blown argument. So since your weak puny little mind cant remember that why dont you take another look: I dont know if you were born on Mars or something, but if that seems like me not doing anything then you truly are stupid. I have no more bloody clue than anyone else here, Im sorry that I don't know who to vote for but if you wanna accuse me then go ahead, but good luck with taking me down bitch! Now, now, my little Janus, mind you manners; we're in the company of women, not in the Mess Hall, dontcha know?
Hinckley Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Maybe I missed something, but was all the chatter between you too fake, or did it just start fake and turn into something bigger? Are you two meant to be some kind of team, the way you say that makes me think that theres something going on which the rest of us are not aware of. I suggested that to him but he called me Scum and didn't want to go along. It was easy enough to provoke him anyway. It wasn't totally fake, but it was a way to have something happening for people to respond to and get reactions from. I thought he would stop when I stopped but he probably reacted to it the most. Anyway, it could've actually given him ample opportunity to appear the same as his reputation would hold. Look like an active Townie and berade people to seem proactive. If you're waiting for a reply he has told me in private he refuses to answer to my argument: Sure thing, troll. I'm sure you'll be twice as proud of this day one as of your last day in Bloodbrick II It was a 'joke' last night but 48 hours of the same stuff gets pretty intolerable. Anyway, I won't be responding to your posts in thread since you trolled so hard today. I'm innocent, you're whatever; history will confirm me as the truth-teller So, you'll just have to make up your own mind.
Rufus Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Vote Tally Toulouse LePlot (WhiteFang) 1 (JimButcher) Ophelia Balls (fhomess) 2 (Professor Flitwick, CallMePieOrDie) Ishaq Ettaq (Wuntin) 1 (ADHO15) Roger Goodenarde (Professor Flitwick) 4 (Scubacarrot, Brickdoctor, CorneliusMurdock, Tamamono) Penelope Farago (Waterbrick Down) 4 (TinyPiesRUs, Zepher, KielDaMan, Sandy) Fr Thomas Thomson (Ricecracker) 1 (Waterbrick Down) Gordon Bennett (KielDaMan) 1 (Fugazi) Jennifer Taylor (Sandy) 1 (Cecilie) Hugh Janus (Eskallon) 1 (def) Patrick Fitzwilliam (def) 1 (Hinckley) 24 hours remain of Day One.
Cecilie Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Oh, sorry. Helping explain our situation is suspicious. I forgot this was EB Ehm, no, helping to explain is not suspicious. Claiming to know something that looks like information only scum would know is suspicious .
Eskallon Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 If you're waiting for a reply he has told me in private he refuses to answer to my argument: So, you'll just have to make up your own mind. Okay, for the following reasons I will: Vote:Patrick Fitzwilliam (def) He has railed against anyone who defied him all day Originally, our pissing match was a fun tactic to see how others would respond and we may have gotten a couple little leads here and there, but perhaps Fitzdef's persistence on attacking me and Ahmed Apu It did seem odd that it was going on so long after it should've been put behind us. But, that aside, his original un-vote was extremely contradictory to all of his previously voiced strategy and then he tried to sweep that under the carpet and now is suddenly pulling out knowledge, in the middle of a day phase, that only the Scum should know. What I don't like is what Mehmet told me above, I see that what Mehmet was doing could have benefited the town and Patrick seems to have turned it to his own advantage and make it an opportunity to attack Mehmet as well as others.
Wuntin Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Point being, the scum are hunting for certain among us, and not merely trying to outnumber us. How do I know? Oh, let's just say Ra told me Saying "Ra told me" isn't a good enough explanation for having information that none of us innocents seem to have. Until you've explained where this information comes from, I will vote: Patrick Fitzwilliam (def).
Zepher Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I apologize to the new movement to get rid of Patrick Fitzwilliam, but, I have to say, he seems, while a little brash, to be a smart enough fellow (or at least he thinks he is), and I highly doubt that he would go and say something that so incriminated himself. He just doesn't seem the type. Dolt, yes, suicidal... not so much. I hate this first day vote. I think Penelope's defense was well thought out, but if I unvote her I risk throwing Roger or Patrick to the dogs, and I do not particularly think that either of them have done anything to deserve it, so, for the moment I will allow the tie to remain and let the gods decide.
Zepher Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I just had a thought, about WHO the cultists could be trying to get. The cultists may be trying to root out those of us who can not act during the night. That would make sense, as the gods said that they wanted to make those who sleep soundly important as well. Though, of course, this may be wrong, or, as Patrick Fitzwilliam experienced, this attempt at figuring things out MAY place my head on the block. But, as the people of my town say, a head on the bloke is better than a head in the stock(ade)s. Basically, you'd rather be dead than stupid.
Hinckley Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I apologize to the new movement to get rid of Patrick Fitzwilliam, but, I have to say, he seems, while a little brash, to be a smart enough fellow (or at least he thinks he is), and I highly doubt that he would go and say something that so incriminated himself. He just doesn't seem the type. Dolt, yes, suicidal... not so much. If he is scum, then there would be a definite reverse psychology to his actions. I'm proposing he is thinking that we would assume he is too smart to do something so stupid. We all know he is one of the smartest, if not the smartest among us. So, naturally it would be some sort of risk. The timing of all of this is what got me, as I already stated. He votes against me. He votes with me. I call him out. He very quietly unvotes and then gives us a huge help. If there is some game mechanic that allows him to learn what the cultist's win condition is, I would find it very surprising that it would occur in the middle of the day, let alone Day One. I asked him about his knowledge and he told me to read Mafiawiki or just use my head that Ossie and Is would throw in a twist like most hosts of holes in the desert. So, was it inference or fact? I still can't tell. I know I can't get a clear answer from him. He just keeps calling me Scum, troll and dipshit. I just had a thought, about WHO the cultists could be trying to get. The cultists may be trying to root out those of us who can not act during the night. That would make sense, as the gods said that they wanted to make those who sleep soundly important as well. Though, of course, this may be wrong, or, as Patrick Fitzwilliam experienced, this attempt at figuring things out MAY place my head on the block. But, as the people of my town say, a head on the bloke is better than a head in the stock(ade)s. Basically, you'd rather be dead than stupid. When I first heard this theory, I thought it was a smart thought. However, after thinking about it, I'm not sure making vanilla townies the target of invisible killers is really involving them more. It's just inviting them to be corpses. In that way, I guess it could be seen as involving them more, but I'm not sure they would see it that way as they're being slaughtered...
fhomess Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I'm trying to think how he could possibly know such a win condition, and it seems to me that there are a few options: 1. He's a cultist - the most obvious way he would know their win condition 2. He doesn't actually know it and is just saying it because... well I'm not really sure - to see who reacts, perhaps? 3. He is neither a cultist nor an innocent and has his own win condition which has made this clear to him. 4. He's been given some information related to his role as an innocent. The only other option I can think of is that he's talking with enough people behind the scenes to have gathered information that seems unlikely anyone would've revealed to him yet. Among these, options 1 and 3 seem like pretty good reasons to vote for him. Option 2 seems a bit silly at this point given all the other goings on of the day. Option 4 is intriguing, but if what he says about the Cultists win condition is true, also potentially dangerous to reveal unless he's really in line to be sacrficed. If he's an innocent and thinks that he's among the group the Cultists ought to target, his behavior today would seemingly not have been a good approach. Since he also seems to be smart, perhaps he doesn't believe he's a target of the Cultists under this option. What am I missing?
CMP Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 What am I missing? Someone with a role could've contacted him and told him. Okay. I'm pretty surprised Defitz's name has come up for sacrifice. Not in a bad way. He's been a total megablocks today (predictable), has voted three times, and his logic seems to be jumping around significantly. I, personally, don't believe Penelope (good defense) nor Roger (made a suggestion, though his speaking is full of crap) are scum. DeFitz...I'm still wary there, I'll be honest, but I'll sooner believe he's scum than either Roger of Penelope. Unvote: Ophelia Balls (fhormess), Vote: Patrick Fitzwilliam (def) Even on the chance he turns up town, none of us will have a vein popping in our head when we listen to conversations here.
JimBee Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Nadir doesn't know... to him, it still seems like this argument is a battle of egos. Mehmet does make some strong points, even though they count on references to books. Then again, so do Patrick's... For one, Nadir does not think Penelope is a Cultist. Her reasoning is solid; why would she get in the middle of an argument when she could sit back and watch like the other Cultists? That is, assuming both Patrick and Mehmet were innocent, and Penelope was a Cultist. Another possibility is that both Patrick and Penelope are Cultists, but Nadir doesn't think it likely that two Cultists would so blatantly look... well, allied. Something just doesn't add up here. Nadir hates to "split the vote" more, but he must speak his mind. It seems to Nadir that the wrong choice will be made anyway, with votes going in different directions. Yes, we need a majority, but if the votes are so evenly split that gives the Cultists more power, since ultimately they can have a huge part in who gets lynched. On that note, Nadir will switch votes. Unvote: Toulouse Leplot (WhiteFang) Vote: Patrick Fitzwilliam (def) Nadir will just see where this goes...
Hinckley Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 we need a majority, No, we don't. Read the rules, goofy.
Brickdoctor Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Baa-haa-haa! Who would take any non-committed statement, or worse still, not speaking, with anything other than suspicion. It's not that you weren't committed, because this is Day One when it's hard to be committed. You just went to the extreme. It's the fact that you suggested a random vote after other people had been accusing one another. There were suspects at that point, so a random vote wouldn't really make sense. The only thing I could see someone gaining from a random vote is if some other Scum had been accused and the person was trying to divert attention away from them.
fhomess Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Someone with a role could've contacted him and told him. Are you suggesting that there are potentially innocents who were told the Cultist's win condition, and that they've shared that with Patrick in private but no one else? I suppose that's possible although I don't know why they would do such a thing so quickly. It's possible that people told him their role and he deduced a possible win condition from that. I doubt a cultist would've told it to him. I believe the only person who's claimed to have had a private conversation with him was Mehmet. The question I'm debating is whether or not I think he's likely to have deduced it, is just throwing out crap, or is one of them himself.
JimBee Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 No, we don't. Read the rules, goofy. Whoopsie. Nadir meant that the person with the most votes gets lynched. Please reread remember what I said with that in mind.
Rufus Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Vote Tally Ophelia Balls (fhomess): 1 vote (Professor Flitwick) Ishaq Ettaq (Wuntin): 1 vote (ADHO15) Roger Goodenarde (Professor Flitwick): 4 votes (Scubacarrot, Brickdoctor, CorneliusMurdock, Tamamono) Penelope Farago (Waterbrick Down): 4 votes (TinyPiesRUs, Zepher, KielDaMan, Sandy) Fr Thomas Thomson (Ricecracker): 1 vote (Waterbrick Down) Gordon Bennett (KielDaMan): 1 vote (Fugazi) Jennifer Taylor (Sandy): 1 vote (Cecilie) Hugh Janus (Eskallon): 1 vote (def) Patrick Fitzwilliam (def): 5 votes (Hinckley, Eskallon, Wuntin, CallMePieOrDie, JimButcher)
Professor Flitwick Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I'm going to keep my vote for Ms. Balls. Her behaviour earlier was rather doolally. Whilst I do find it odd that Ra would speak it directly to Mr. Pizwilliam, him being sacrificed would be a win-win situation. Either he dies telling the truth, and we find out what these cultists want, or we give ourselves three cheers for nabbing a cultist during our first day! It's not that you weren't committed, because this is Day One when it's hard to be committed. You just went to the extreme. It's the fact that you suggested a random vote after other people had been accusing one another. There were suspects at that point, so a random vote wouldn't really make sense. The only thing I could see someone gaining from a random vote is if some other Scum had been accused and the person was trying to divert attention away from them. True, there were possibilities for sacrificing, on both sides of the 'ego debate', but as I stated earlier, I found neither to be particularly compelling. I couldn't see a prime target for sacrificing, and thus would rather go with the ?/24 chance of landing a scum, than the 0/24 chance.
Brickdoctor Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 True, there were possibilities for sacrificing, on both sides of the 'ego debate', but as I stated earlier, I found neither to be particularly compelling. I couldn't see a prime target for sacrificing, and thus would rather go with the ?/24 chance of landing a scum, than the 0/24 chance. Odds aren't close to everything in this situation. I doubt that everyone's behavior has been perfect enough to make everyone equally un-suspicious.But if you say you had no opinion whatsoever...
Recommended Posts