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.

*punches the_ferrett in the face*

PUNCH!!!!!1!11!!!!one!!

How DARE you belittle the recently deceased Inquisitor Mort!!!

VOTE: the_ferrett

Anyone lacking any respect for an Inquisitor of The Emperor clearly stains the Imperium with the taint of the ruineous powers!

For those of you thought I might be over-reacting, I was actually UNDER REACTING.

Anyone who is/was/will be an Imperial Citizen knows that Inquisitors are the will of The Emperor, and therefore should be respected as such.

unvote: the_ferrett

However, I am largely suspicious of Bishops new found confidence, or excitement. Something like that. It makes me think he knows more than he's letting on...

VOTE: BishopGore

halonachos wrote:Drk_O I think that you're trying to mislead us into voting for people you do not like for some reason.

I disagree, I'm not leading or misleading anyone.

IGLannister wrote:So, are we still struggling for consensus, or have we found us a heretic to string up?

We still have 12 days, we have time

It's better to lynch someone, anyone day one. Other wise, we're stuck in RVS in Day 2, which should be over by the end of two days at most IMO.

It's better to vote like this on Day 1, than to vote no lynch day 1.

BishopGore wrote:Drk_O has started yet another game with loud denunciations of those who he deems threatening, people who have been seen to have at least a modicum of intelligence or the ability to string together sentences. I expect you'll all feel the probing of his thoughts eventually, but I shall shoulder them for now.

I like starting very noticibly in these games, it usually ends the RVS quickly. Sure, it's ususally into "Whatever shall we do with this Mr. Drk_O fellow?" stage, but you'll generally get a better idea of who is who when I go.

BishopGore wrote:To channel Thor a little, why do you feel I'm more confident here Drk_O? What have you seen in me that makes me a target for others?

Well, for starters..

Bishopgore wrote:Now this is my third game, though I only feel I played one and a half games so far, due to the mess of the last one. In both I was loyal and good and generally used as a human shield by those who were evil. Not this time, oh no. This time the Daemons and the cultists shall fall before me and my loyal bretheren.

This. In your other 1.5/2 games, you weren't so... I can't put my finger on it atm, but you totally jumped out at me and grabbed my attention. I can't remember why but I was sure of it at the time, so it must have been good. Also, you haven't been anything other than a Civillian before, so I'm betting that you're not this game.

What I am sure of, is that something is different about the way you've been posting this game.

Also, I demand prods on those who haven't said anything yet!

halonachos wrote:You see, I'm not too sure about this. While Drk_O acted like that and I thought he may be a heretic, vikingscott voted for me. I think that the demons know the cultists and the cultists know the cultists so I thought that if Drk_O was a heretic and vikingscott moved to defend him that would make scott also a heretic or a demon. This is my first game as well, but maybe scott was like me and just voting for the hell of it.

I think the biggest proof of vikingscott's innocence is Drk_O's innocence or the survival during the night of anyone who voted against either one of them.

I disagree entirely.

I could be an innocent, and he could be guilty, defending me so if I die, he looks innocent, or if he dies, I look guilty.

I could be guilty, and he could be innocent, defending me because, because.

VikingScott wrote:

IGLannister wrote:I always surmised that the first vote is usually an evil one, if only to cast dispersions on someone and set them up later. Now, my being new and uninformed about how this game is run, at this point I can only keep my eyes open as to who might slip up.

So, I'm still eyeing Scott. I'm not tryna be mean or noobish, but I feel the first vote has something to say. Don't know what it was that was said, but it said something.

Without looking back the 1st person to vote was Drk_O not me.

And I can certainly guarantee that I am definately not evil

Unvote: BishopGore

I'm going to try something alittle different.

Paul and Lan, you're both voting for no lynch.

I'm going to vote for one of you.

So, explain why I shouldn't vote for you, and explain why you continue to vote no lynch.

Paul Atreides wrote:Drk_O, so are you voting for me or not?

If you have any querys as to what I've said, re read what I said.

I'm much too lazy to repeat myself, or copy-paste what I said for that matter

Fifty wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:And I can certainly guarantee that I am definately not evil

So maybe you are bad?

Actually, you seem to be posting a lot less than you have done in other games. Care to explain that?

I'm not sure really, I've been on Dakka more frequently than normal. I think I've been focusing on the Zombie RP alot more.

IGLannister wrote:So to dark O and Ginger, ID watch out. Your logic is flawed, and as such, your arguments hold no water.

Keep thinking that



I'm going to use a countdown. I'll explain my decision then. Tick! Tock! Tock!

halonachos wrote:Hey Drk_O, you're in the zombie RP right?

Yep, I'm the guy with one arm

halonachos wrote:

You shouldn't vote for either.

Lan has IG in his first name, which stands for IS not GUILTY so obviously he isn't guilty.
Paul has Atreides in his name which stands for After Thoroughly Remembering Everything I Deemed Everyone Sinister, which means he suspect all of us and if he suspects all of us he is obviously the inquisitor and you don't want to vote off the inquisitor do you?

Egads, you have a point! I'll definately have to consider it carefully when assessing my decision!

BishopGore wrote:

Stynier, into Drk_Oblit actually does something suspicous, then you should stop this man hunt for him. He's been posting constructively and you dshould forcus on someone who has actually done something suspicous. :/

Another move to protect Drk_O after your attack on Halo for daring to think Drk_O and Scott might be linked... I think this is a little suspicious LL. I understand that you want to keep things moving, maybe, but Stynier wasn't even attacking Drk_O, he was making positive commentary. You don't seem to like us talking about Drk_O too much.

Interesting.

Bishop, if you look gentley into the past, Lord-Loss is always like that.

Not that I don't totally appreciate it, cause it's superspecialawesome

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:I suspect Drk_Oblitr8r, reason pending...

I suspect you, reason withdrawn

halonachos wrote:In fact, if Drk_O is the inquisitor, he's not doing a very good job of it.

LIES!!! I IS THE GREEEEEEEEEEEEETEST INQUISITOR EVVVVOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRR

but seriously, ohhh nose. If I was the Inquisitor, I'd definately be crazy like normal.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Drk_Oblitr8r needs to post more, since I want to get him... A BRAND NEW CAR, COME ON DOOOOOOWWWWWNNNN

Ok, thats "D r" no, no a, no-no I'm NOT a Doctor "k underscore O" not zero, not o "O" Good?

Good, when does it arrive?



... Serious post coming. I'm ending the RVS now, if it hasn't ended. Get those random votes out of your system. All of you, vote for everyone else... NAO!!!

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Unvote: BishopGore

I'm going to try something alittle different.

Paul and Lan, you're both voting for no lynch.

I'm going to vote for one of you.

So, explain why I shouldn't vote for you, and explain why you continue to vote no lynch.

This was a trap.

Not entirely on just Lanny and Paul, but for everyone(although manly Lanny and Paul anyway). I didn't pick Lanny and Paul because they were voting "No Lynch" I picked them because I'm relatively new to traps, and wanted to keep my sample size small, and they have many things in common. One of those is that they're both new, so I figured I could catch others in the trap as well. Also, I'm concerned that if I had too many people that the trap would largely go unnoticed.

The entire purpose of this trap was to to try and gauge their reactions, how they think, how much faith they have in their decisions and to try and see if anyone will rally against/with me on this.

Results?

Immediately, Paul explained that he had no/little faith in his reasons for voting.

TherVadam and gnd arguibly jumped into voting for lanny to encourage him to explain why

Lanny responded very well, almost. He spelt my name wrong, BAD! Also, I probibly don't think this needs saying now, but I generally know what I'm doing.

Ohh wait. Lanny didn't respond well! He went from

IGLannister wrote:I am very deeply entrenched in my beliefs, thank you for noticing. As to my no lynch vote, I'm not one to randomly cast a vote just because it makes me look suspicious if I don't. I don't like my votes being wasted, especially if there's a possibility it might be the end of the road for an innocent.

to "I'm not using my vote to stop someone from dying!"

Votes can be used to kill players, true. But you voted to not kill anyone. Now you're not. I hope I explained this well.

At this stage, I introduced a countdown. I never had any intention of meeting it, I was applying the pressure a time limit creates.

Paul unvotes, demonstrating the lack of faith he explained earlier. *sigh*



So, what did I learn?
They're both more similar than I thought.
There maybe be a connection between TherVadam and dd, I mean gnd.
I implemented the trap alittle too early.
I'll Vote: Lanny because you let me down

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:I don't see the connection between TherVadam and gnd though, care to go deeper? (Genuine curiosity actually...)

I pretty much explained it as in depth as I have. They both voted for Lanny for the same reasons adjacent to each other

VikingScott wrote:New panda pic Drk_O?

OH U

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Ok, let me put that better, who is gnd?

ginger_nid_dude

TherVadam wrote:
Drk: I don't know. I can obviously make claims as to not having any special alliance with ginger_nid, but I don't how what my credibility is to you at this point, and obviously there is no way to defend myself without making myself look obvious, however, we can see that ginger_nid_dude wasn't actually agreeing with me. Clearly,

I agree with dark O. A vote for no lynch is bad unless you have an interesting standoff situation like last game.

To motivate you a bit Vote:IGLannister

, he was agreeing with you.

In all honesty, I have to say: Before these posts, I had still had you pretty low on my scale of who not to trust, and perhaps this is simply me being touchy about being accused, but the fact that this comes directly after halonachos' speech about lumping people together, I cannot help but think that you have some dirty link that you're trying to conceal. I don't know who it's with, although linking me to ginger_nid_dude when you're linked to him would've been pretty brilliant, but for the moment, I think that I will Unvote: IGLannister and Vote: Drk_Oblitr8r

I was kinda worried about your initial reaction, but I didn't say anything about gnd agreeing with you. He voted for Lanny just after you did (well, 44 mins after you did ^_^")

I think I'm having trouble finding Haloz post in which you spoke. Is it the one with his plan? I think I skimed through it, but I don't really think I payed much attention to it til just now.

And to clarify, I'm not linking you to gnd, I'm linking gnd to you. It's different enough.
You haven't really done anything to link yourself to gnd, but gnd has. You can totally thank him for it later.

IGLannister wrote:vote Drk_Oblitr8r.

sorry I let you down...

It's ok, I let me down too...

halonachos wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:I don't see the connection between TherVadam and gnd though, care to go deeper? (Genuine curiosity actually...)

I pretty much explained it as in depth as I have. They both voted for Lanny for the same reasons adjacent to each other

You suspect GND and Thervadam, but voted for IG. I can make some pretty good straw-man logic, but you sir are a master. Unless you place IG in that same group, in which case I can say that I would agree with your logic there. I like grouping.

Although I would think that you would vote for a person you suspected to be in a group. A different tactic than one I would use I guess, but seeing as though you are the veteran, I'll see how this works.

Maybe I'm onto something

As Bishop said before, if people aren't voting for you, then you're not doing it right.

Can I request prods?

Lord-Loss wrote:Can Drk_Oblit and IG summorise why they feel each other are suspicous.

Lanny is self contradictionary. One moment, he's making strong comments, the next, he's completely given up on the what he was talking about completely.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Drk_O because it seems like he is trying to "rule the town".

I guess I kinda am. I'm trying to move away from being the crazy guy for awhile, and it won't happen unless I try to focus the town in a specific direction.

TherVadam wrote: It's as if they're opposites of each other, with Drk_O trying to fulfill the main lead, and GND trying to hide in the background.

Fixed. If we were mirroring each other, we'd both be doing the same thing.

Lanny, rage voting like you did isn't a good idea. It just gives off an immature vibe and, generally, it's childish...

IGLannister wrote:Lolz dark I meant rage vote as in "kneejerk reaction to unfounded suspicions", not "OMGWTF HE VOTED FOR ME ARRRGHH!!" *throws iPhone into tv*

so relax man. What you know about my maturity lvl could maybe fill up the inside of a cheerio. So let's not start throwing around statements that could be construed as inflammatory, aight?

Dood, you're totally the guy who should chill! I was totally talking you through what you did. I said it made you totally seem that way. I didn't say anything about you specifically, and I'm pretty sure you're a very nice person and such.

Both examples you gave are pretty much the same, just with a different tone. Like drinking tea with your pinky sticking out.

I could have sworn I voted for Lanny

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Unvote: BishopGore

I'm going to try something alittle different.

Paul and Lan, you're both voting for no lynch.

I'm going to vote for one of you.

So, explain why I shouldn't vote for you, and explain why you continue to vote no lynch.

This was a trap.

Not entirely on just Lanny and Paul, but for everyone(although manly Lanny and Paul anyway). I didn't pick Lanny and Paul because they were voting "No Lynch" I picked them because I'm relatively new to traps, and wanted to keep my sample size small, and they have many things in common. One of those is that they're both new, so I figured I could catch others in the trap as well. Also, I'm concerned that if I had too many people that the trap would largely go unnoticed.

The entire purpose of this trap was to to try and gauge their reactions, how they think, how much faith they have in their decisions and to try and see if anyone will rally against/with me on this.

Results?

Immediately, Paul explained that he had no/little faith in his reasons for voting.

TherVadam and gnd arguibly jumped into voting for lanny to encourage him to explain why

Lanny responded very well, almost. He spelt my name wrong, BAD! Also, I probibly don't think this needs saying now, but I generally know what I'm doing.

Ohh wait. Lanny didn't respond well! He went from

IGLannister wrote:I am very deeply entrenched in my beliefs, thank you for noticing. As to my no lynch vote, I'm not one to randomly cast a vote just because it makes me look suspicious if I don't. I don't like my votes being wasted, especially if there's a possibility it might be the end of the road for an innocent.

to "I'm not using my vote to stop someone from dying!"

Votes can be used to kill players, true. But you voted to not kill anyone. Now you're not. I hope I explained this well.

At this stage, I introduced a countdown. I never had any intention of meeting it, I was applying the pressure a time limit creates.

Paul unvotes, demonstrating the lack of faith he explained earlier. *sigh*



So, what did I learn?
They're both more similar than I thought.
There maybe be a connection between TherVadam and dd, I mean gnd.
I implemented the trap alittle too early.
I'll Vote: Lanny because you let me down

the_ferrett wrote:Who - noone. Why? Out of cheese error, redo from start. Seriously there isn't enough points of logic to adequately state a person of guilt. Its literally still a toss of a dart onto a boad to see who draws blood at this point.

I had a big speach thought up, but I decided that I had a better way to say it...

Spoiler:

Vote. Vote vote vote vote. Vote vote vote vote vote vote. VOTE VOTE VOTE

TherVadam wrote:On the other hand, Drk_O seems to have stopped scumhunting, and stopped genuinely contributing since just a little bit after the posts.

There's not really much more I can do for now. Something needs to jump out at me again.

Good idea n0t_u

It definately stands out more

I dislike this game, it's going to be AGES before we finally fully vote to lynch.

Who to VikiScot?