Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"I believe in humanity and worship an aspect of the Emperor that has little to do with the carcass on Terra."

@Arctik: Sisters of Order Famulous have need for more measured responses to both investigation and negotiation than our militant sisters. As I said, I would admire Thor's unbending will if I could be sure of his motives. In this situation, however, I wonder why he believes it would be best for the Imperium that everyone approach the hunt for the traitors exactly like he wants or, at least, under his guidance. My silence until spoken to does not prevent or hinder his interrogations. My suspicion of him, however, when he had heretofore seemed above suspicion seems to be more troublesome to him.

Also, with regard to the blessed Emperor, I find your undignified language inappropriate to the complexity of the theological topic you address.

(OCC: Sorry about the unclear post--was agreeing with you then talking to Thor.))

Manchu wrote: In this situation, however, I wonder why he believes it would be best for the Imperium that everyone approach the hunt for the traitors exactly like he wants

I have explained multiple times why I believe my method is better. You have not explained why yours is better but continue to act as though mine is toxic.

Manchu wrote:My silence until spoken to does not prevent or hinder his interrogations.

Nor did I say it did. I simply said that attempting to breed a climate of not talking and avoiding "loose lips" is unameniable to us catching the traitors. I have explained why I feel your stated method represents that belief. I have asked multiple times for you to explain why it's better and thus far the best you can manage is that apparently I am somehow controlling the vote. This is provable as not true, because if I was somehow controlling the vote the person who would be one vote away from a lynching would be you, not lotg - who at the moment I still believe is more innocent buffon then plotting traitor and have not seen much evidence to change my viewpoint.

Manchu wrote: My suspicion of him, however, when he had heretofore seemed above suspicion seems to be more troublesome to him.

When was I above suspicion and by whom?

I am not troubled by your suspicions - I am troubled by what I perceive as poor logic within those suspicions and have attempted to open dialogue with you about them. Throughout our conversation I felt you were dodging questions and you felt that I was being too obviously dumb to understand the answers. I submit this is a failing on your part to communicate clearly to me - since you claim to understand where I'm coming from. I'm still trying to get you to explain your reasons in a way I can understand.

I also can't understand Lord-Loss' "logic" and asked him to explain it to me. As far as I can tell he's trying to use your arguments - do you feel he properly presented him? Do you think he answered the (what I felt were quite reasonable) questions I had about the way his logic worked? I really never saw him try to answer when I poked holes in his logic chain. But, then again, maybe I'm being too dumb to understand it. Could you explain again why my method is poison and how it will work against us in finding traitors? I honestly do not understand your logic as to the why.

Standing back and saying "he'll never understand us, let's vote for him" is poor logic. What if I am innocent and just being dumb about the investigation? Why don't you educate me?

I still outline my method as follows
1. No rush to lynch
2. People should vote in order for us to see where they stand and as evidence for later
3. Reasons to vote (beyond RVS) should have some sort of explained logic and reasoning to them.
4. Everyone should question logic that appears bad.

How do you define my method differently from the above, and why do you think it's bad for the Imperium?

Thor665 wrote:You have not explained why yours is better but continue to act as though mine is toxic.

Incorrect. You keep repeating this and I'll not repeat my answer to it a fifth time.

I simply said that attempting to breed a climate of not talking and avoiding "loose lips" is unameniable to us catching the traitors.

Agreed. We figured that out a while ago. The fact that you're still bringing it up supports my contention that you want to appear logical but are only actually confusing the issues. Maybe it's intentional, maybe it isn't.

I have asked multiple times for you to explain why it's better and thus far the best you can manage is that apparently I am somehow controlling the vote. This is provable as not true, because if I was somehow controlling the vote the person who would be one vote away from a lynching would be you, not lotg - who at the moment I still believe is more innocent buffon then plotting traitor and have not seen much evidence to change my viewpoint.

I have explained myself on multiple occasions. And there is no proof you are not trying to attempt to control the vote. There is only proof that you are not very successful if your true motive is to mobilize the other against me. Furthermore, the only evidence you have against me is that I disagree with you.

Could you explain again why my method is poison and how it will work against us in finding traitors? I honestly do not understand your logic as to the why.

I don't think that. I think you're mannerism could be a convenient way to cover up being a traitor and shifting blame as I have said so many times over.

What if I am innocent and just being dumb about the investigation?

I have outlined that possibility several times. Your persistence in the same desperately (sorry, that simply is the best word to describe it from my perspective) desperately confrontational approach--as I just said--is what makes me believe otherwise.

How do you define my method differently from the above, and why do you think it's bad for the Imperium?

Your method is not toxic, poison, or bad for the Imperium if you are loyal. If you are not loyal, which is my feeling (explained countless times), then this is just a very clever act. So you see, I'm not telling you to stop or that you're tearing down the Imperium here. Like I said (or at least meant to imply and have since clarified) when you first questioned me: your methods are not mine and your insistence that I adopt yours is awfully scummy.

I thank this Eldar, for now I don't have to vote, saving me time and reasoning. Thank you.

Did somebody hear some mumbling from the closet? (jk)

Manchu wrote:Incorrect. You keep repeating this and I'll not repeat my answer to it a fifth time.

You asked me why I believed it would be best if everyone used my method. I responded - simply because you have responded to my response before doesn't mean I won't respond the same way when you ask a similar question. I didn't realize you thought my method was good as long as I'm not a traitor - thank you, I feel as though I have learned something new. So we agree my method is good (as long as I'm not a traitor) and we agree that you do not believe your method is superior to mine (though you may hold out to a belief that it is no inferior - to which I disagree.) Okay.

Manchu wrote:

I simply said that attempting to breed a climate of not talking and avoiding "loose lips" is unameniable to us catching the traitors.

Agreed. We figured that out a while ago. The fact that you're still bringing it up supports my contention that you want to appear logical but are only actually confusing the issues. Maybe it's intentional, maybe it isn't.

You specifically brought up how your silence didn't harm my method. I was explaining again what I said. So we can agree then that your loose lips comment was potentially mis interpreted by me? You *do* support people talking openly and communicating and see no advantage to avoiding "loose lips" (if you had agreed to this before I totally missed it, when did you do so?)

Manchu wrote:I have explained myself on multiple occasions. And there is no proof you are not trying to attempt to control the vote. There is only proof that you are not very successful if your true motive is to mobilize the other against me.

And I still say the only "proof" you have that I am controlling the vote is my insistence on logic - a purpose that you yourself appear to agree with me on. If that is the extent of my control...well...where's the bad angle? And if you agree with me about the logic don't you then want people to use logic and therefore are equally as likely a traitor as me? Certainly you are not saying that a desire not to use logic is the sign of a loyalist - so I'm not sure what you're driving at. Is this about me "bullying" people to use logic? How is that bad?

Manchu wrote:Furthermore, the only evidence you have against me is that I disagree with you.

I will also cite the loose lips comment, as I have from the beginning, because of the concept that it appears to encourage lack of communication. Your defense always just seemed to be "but that's my style and I don't think yours is any better." Did you ever come out and say "I didn't men that when i said loose lips, I meant something else and of course people should openly communicate." I can't find where you did. It appears to be roughly what you're saying now - is this correct? Did you come out at some other point with a clarification to make that clear? I missed it, feel free to quote it to me and I'll apologize. I asked you to do this before and you flat out refused - I still can't find where it is.

Manchu wrote:I don't think that. I think you're mannerism could be a convenient way to cover up being a traitor and shifting blame as I have said so many times over.

It could be I suppose. It could also be a chance to use Ockham's Razor a bit. As I understand it you're saying "Thor's methods are good, unless he's scum, I think he's scum, therefore his methods are bad. The proof that he's scum is his bad methods." I submit that is poor logic.

Manchu wrote:I have outlined that possibility several times. Your persistence in the same desperately (sorry, that simply is the best word to describe it from my perspective) desperately confrontational approach--as I just said--is what makes me believe otherwise.

And each time I desperately confront you I always outline why and ask questions seeking clarification. I keep doing so, because as I've said, I'm not seeing your answers. Truth be told I still don't think you answered a lot of my questions.

Manchu wrote:Like I said (or at least meant to imply and have since clarified) when you first questioned me: your methods are not mine and your insistence that I adopt yours is awfully scummy.

You have said this - above I listed my methods. Which ones would you like not to use? We can discuss it. I cannot imagine why any of them would be bad for a pro Imperium person to follow. Apparently neither can you...(except on the vague assertation that I'm scum because I want to use them)

Firstly, I'm removing everyones penalty votes. So they don't count when I check them in a moment.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:OOC: The best I can fathom is that lotg was locked away for a disciplinary beating for not participating in, and actually rather disrupting, gameplay. I still don't think he's particularly suspicious. If the GM would like to clarify that this is rather one of these 'random events' it would be appreciated.

(OOC: Now that I'm back, sure)
Random Events are pretty self explainitory, They are events which happen randomly. I aim to use them to shake things up. Some have triggers, and I sometimes, I post saying what a trigger is. Such as with lotg as an example.

Lord-Loss wrote:
(OOC: As a funny random event, someone has to "Wath the Orgyn", so the "person washing him" cannot vote, but Orkeo can cause he got better ears then 'umans and can shout through walls.)

I want to make a funny random event, but I don't have any ideas yet

lord of the ghosts wrote:I thank this Eldar, for now I don't have to vote, saving me time and reasoning. Thank you.

Eldar didn't do it. You shouldn't have picked the odd "Emperor's Choice Decision Straw"

However, I'll add a trigger to get the door open, so try something if you want to get out.

:Firangi glances over to a nearby heavy cabinet full of holo-tapes:

"Hmm... Would anyone like to help me move that in front of the door?"

(OOC: Presuming there are only two traitors, and we manage to lynch successfully today - a slim chance, I know - the occurence of a night kill would tell us whether or not LOTG is a traitor. If he's locked in there until tomorrow, he presumably can't cut any throats...)

Voting Count #4

-Ultrafool (-)
-Orkeosaurus (-)
3-Thor665 (ghosty, Manchu, Lord-Loss)
-Arctik_Firangi (-)
1-Manchu ( Thor665)
1-Lord-Loss (Arctik_Firangi)
-n0t_u (-)
-Ghosty (-)
-Mekboy (-)
4-Lord of Ghosts- (Owain, Mekkboy, Orkeosaurus, n0t_u)
-Owain (-)

No Lynch-
Not Voting- Ultrafool,
Tempoarily Can't Vote- lord of the ghosts

"I would facepalm but I can't move my arms. If you Imperials want to catch the Genestealers more effectively" began the Eldar in disgust "Pick up a lead pipe off the ground, or off the wall because your Mon Keigh Vehicles are that well made, and proceed to beat your faces out."

Arctik_Firangi wrote::Firangi glances over to a nearby heavy cabinet full of holo-tapes:

"Hmm... Would anyone like to help me move that in front of the door?"

"I'd love to help" started the Eldar with a smile "But I'm alittle tied up at the moment, however, if you let me out..."

My reasoning was that he might not be a stealler, but he might not be a faithful either. The main reason was so we could just move on instead of being stuck in this stalemate until the three weeks of day are up and the steallers get to kill the others.

In simple terms a mostly baseless vote, like nearly everyone's vote. There is no evidence at the moment so it is mostly guess work at the moment.
Basically there was as much backing up the vote for LoG as a vote for anyone else at the moment. No one knows who is who and it is very unlikely someone would simply slip up so soon in the game. Basically for the first couple of rounds this is just going to be a witch hunt.

If a Genestealler is killed this turn it is mearly luck, the sooner we get past this first round the faster we can get to finding these traitors.

((I'm responding to this post totally out of character simply due to a lack of desire to go through the effort to transform game terms into in story terms and explain Mafia! meta in 40k-ese - just pretend I did

n0t_u wrote:My reasoning was that he might not be a stealler, but he might not be a faithful either. The main reason was so we could just move on instead of being stuck in this stalemate until the three weeks of day are up and the steallers get to kill the others.

Let's worry about that if we get really close to the deadline. For the moment we still have a lot of time to talk out our decisions.

In simple terms a mostly baseless vote, like nearly everyone's vote. There is no evidence at the moment so it is mostly guess work at the moment.
Basically there was as much backing up the vote for LoG as a vote for anyone else at the moment. No one knows who is who and it is very unlikely someone would simply slip up so soon in the game. Basically for the first couple of rounds this is just going to be a witch hunt.

You are correct - it seems unlikely someone would obviously slip up. However some of the people voting lotg point at some of his actions and say "hah! Obvious slip up!" To my mind that suggests either he's an obvious traitor or an obvious new player who has made some very poor decisions. I tend to favor the latter at this particular juncture and feel it's unwise to vote for him as a lynch Day 1. This holds especially true if the extent of your reasoning was; "well, others were voting for him and I wanted to get Day 1 over with." That is not a good strategy for the Imperial players to take - they want the Day Phase to last longer. Genestealers want the Day Phase to go quick.

The game is a witch hunt - but I don't think you're using the phrase correctly. For the first couple of Days it is not totally random. There are people who are good at this game, and their statistical chance of finding a scummy player within the first couple of days is better then totally random chance. Ergo there is some skill involved and there are ways to spot scummy players. Our chances are better then pure random voting as long as we apply logic and common sense to our votes. Don't let anyone tell you different. [and before Manchu flips out - please note that the previous sentence references the sentence in front of it - what I'm saying is don't let anyone tell you that our chances are no better then pure random voting. He can somehow apply his game concept which differs from mine in ways he won't clarify in whatever manner he chooses as long as he accepts it is superior to random chance.]

If a Genestealler is killed this turn it is mearly luck, the sooner we get past this first round the faster we can get to finding these traitors.

Of all the rounds this one is the most 'luck' based because the town will have very little information and the Genestealers will have a lot. That said - it is imperative that we accomplish a few basic concepts and do not try to "get past" Day 1. Day 1 is one of the single most important points for a pro-Imperial player in this game.

1. On Day 1 you want to get people talking and establish a concept of what they tend to vote for - this provides evidence for later.
2. You want to spot which players avoid logic or use poor logic.
3. You want to find which players seem too likely to lurk - lurking is dangerous because either they're trying to go unnoticed, or they'll be good targets for scum to get a bandwagon going on late game.
4. Optimally when someone is lynched you want every player to have a vote on whoever they feel is most guilty - this will become useful evidence come Day 2 in analyzing who did what and why. Vote lurking is perhaps worse then post lurking))

(OOC: It seems everyone has posted atleast once, but some havn't talked in a few days.)

If anything gonna happen we need to talk more people!

edited for stupidity

"You are most welcome to actually speak, Lord-Loss, rather than merely demand it of others. For example, would you care to defend youself against my vote?"

ORKEO TALK

GIRL AND SPIT MAN TALK LOTS, CAN'T FOLLOW

GHOST LORD ACT CRAZY, ORKEO NOT LIKE

ALL WE KNOW ABOUT ALIEN IS KILL SMASH. SMASH IS BOSS, ALIEN LIKE KILL BOSSES. NOT MUCH KNOWINGS ABOUT WHO IS ALIEN. STILL DONT KNOW HOW MANY ALIEN.

I have yet to see a reason to contribute. When you lot have finished quibbling about semantics, I'll be here to discuss the issue of the traitor or traitors in out midst.

::Joan's turn to arch an eyebrow::

Owain, allow me to introduce you to my friend Thor . . .

Manchu wrote:Owain, allow me to introduce you to my friend Thor . . .

Well, it's a horrible set up line, but it's true.

Owain wrote:I have yet to see a reason to contribute. When you lot have finished quibbling about semantics, I'll be here to discuss the issue of the traitor or traitors in out midst.

Okay, since Sister Joan ((Manchu)) isn't responding anymore I'll just act like I've won our debate and we can figure it is done.

What would you like to discuss? How do you feel we should open up the dialogue to find the traitor(s)? I'm ready to help.

Good to see that the squabbling is done.

n0t_u wrote:Good to see that the squabbling is done.

n0t_u - I'd still like to see you address my last post to you - how do you feel voting lotg to "get past" ((Day Phase 1)) will be helpful to us in finding traitors? I hit you logic like a Ratskin hits the Blindsnake, and want to see if you're still voting lotg because you still believe in your stated logic.

All the non-speakers like Owain need to speak.

Orkeo didnt take place in this 'squabbling' and he still posted alot.

How can we build up a view of how suspicous certain people are based on X evidence if you dont post at all!

Not posting at all makes your very suspicous without you even doing anything.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Would you care to defend youself against my vote?

You seem to be voting for me because of my apparent "slip up" after the voting of LoG.

My panicy behaviour could suggest two things:

I am infact a Genestealer and now have been noticed by two members of are group and paniced.

Or, Im a ordinary human who is still adapting to the situation and paniced when accused by two members of are group.

The real answer is the latter, I paniced.

If faced with such a situaton now I could probaly prove my innocence.

But there are several more suspicous members of our group and I think it would be best If we focus are attention on those who do not talk at all.

Very well. I suggest turning our attention to Orkeo. I'm not casting a vote against him but the nature of his character warrants, err... special attention. Wouldn't an Ogryn's stupidity be the perfect cover for a traitor?

ORKEO NOT STUPID. ORKEO SMART BONE HEAD. HAS LOTS OF SMARTS, IN HIS HEAD, AND LOTS OF BONE TOO

ORKEO LOOKING OUT FOR GENE-STEALING. IT MAKES SENSE FOR GENE STEALER TO KILL SMASH THOUGH, NOT GOOD EVIDENCE. GIRL AND SPIT MAN MAD AT EACH OTHER, BUT BOTH SEEM LIKE WANT TO FIND GENESTEALER. MAYBE BOTH GOOD

Owain wrote:Wouldn't an Ogryn's stupidity be the perfect cover for a traitor?

No more or less so then someone who seems quite clever.

((OOC - there is very little logic in picking on someone's chosen character personality since they are self-assumed and have no bearing on the role we play in the game (for all we know Orkeo could be a Psyker or Inquisitor just as much as a Genestealer).. This only makes sense if what you're suggesting is that Orkeo specifically chose to act out a character that would allow him to maybe not try to scum hunt as much. If this is what you're saying, say so. Otherwise please expand on what you mean in order to provide some clarity why you feel it makes sense to consider Orkeo scummy.))

[Eh, there's a shortage of good accusations to make early in the game. It's more fun to criticise in character traits than it is to randomly vote by just saying that you're randomly voting. From there you can see how people defend themselves, who supports them or is eager to jump on them, etc. I know you've said that we've reached the point where we can start to guess based on how people have responded so far, but I can't really think of any major leads at the moment. Besides the long fight between you and Manchu, and Lord of the Ghosts acting kind of silly.]

*a sound comes from the door*
*gets louder*
*door vibrates*
"TECHNO!!"
*Through the techno, Lord of the Ghosts says:*
"I belive ultrafool is a traitor, I have stuided other's ship deaths, and relised how the one whom is the mostly doesn't talk, like ultrafool, is most likely the culprit."

Can I ask you to rephrase? I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say (other than not_u is the traitor) much less your reasons for saying it.