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.

"And that is at least a good reason to suspect me," the Sister responds impassively, "rather than that I am not loud enough."

ORKEO IS VERY LOUD. SHOUT EVERYTHING.

*Sigh*

Friends we must not fight, we must discuss.

Now Sister, tell us who you suspect.

She sighs again, more deeply.

"I have just done so but will reiterate. Thor raised the question of his own loyalty first so as to put that issue to rest in our minds. He then proceeded to harshly accuse people for the sake of 'drawing them out'--a convenient way to avoid us inquiring too closely into his reasoning. He has also played the role of a supposedly experienced and knowledgeable leader, goading and coercing others with his bullying demeanor in what seems a clear hope to manipulate others' opinions. Finally, when confronted with the merest hint of criticism he immediately abandoned all other accusations to point his treacherous finger at me. Need I go on?"

She sits down.

"So I will continue to watch."

Him and Arcti_Fangi seem to be working together, Im a keepin' a close eye on both ya.

lord of the ghosts wrote:

Thor665 wrote:Okay, son, now take a breath and why don't we walk through what you were thinking these last few moments.

What were you hoping for as a result from your comments?

It started with you saying "lets' throw votes out"
and then BOOM

You have not answered my question - so let's break it down a little bit.

When you first voted for me some people questioned your decision and asked you if you had a reason for it.

You said yes.

We then asked you for what that reason was.

You said, 'well, I don't really have a reason, but he voted for me.'

My question to you is why did you lie about having a reason to vote for me? What was going through your mind that made you think it was the proper answer to give?

Manchu wrote:"Your hastiness is rather damning," Joan replies without anger, "especially considering that I did explain my 'methods' . . . by which I suppose you mean my formal training in the subtleties of diplomacy and intrigue as a sister of Order Famulous."

You explained your methods, and then I reiterated them to you and explained why I thought they were not worthwhile methods. If you're going to attempt to discredit me at least properly present what actually happened instead of sighing around like a suntanned Uphiver woman who's never handled an autopistol in her life. If you feel I didn't represent your thoughts accurately then restate where I made the misrepresentation so that a logical debate can be had about them and how I did or did not interpret your answer correctly. For the record it still appears your answer is "I want to lurk and perhaps avoid suspicion" and I still stand by my belief that such action is more helpful to a traitor then a true Imperial.

Manchu wrote:Thor raised the question of his own loyalty first so as to put that issue to rest in our minds.

How did I do this? I've encouraged people to vote for me as much as to vote for anyone else. If I haven't done this then please point out where this belief comes from.

He then proceeded to harshly accuse people for the sake of 'drawing them out'--a convenient way to avoid us inquiring too closely into his reasoning.

I believe this is a misrepresentation of my methods. I have asked many questions, and yes, I have put pressure and accusations towards others. However, i will note that it has made people start talking more (like yourself, who was quite fairly quiet up until I began to lob questions and accusations your way). As for using it to avoid examination of my reasoning? This is a gross misrepresentation. Each vote I've made I have openly explained where I was coming from and why I made that vote. Also - if you have questions you may ask me them - that's a good way to get answers. I ask questions of people to understand their reasoning, and I expect answers. I espect the same from myself and at no time have I encouraged anyone not to question me or my methods. If I am incorrect on this show me where I have done so. Otherwise you should continue to expect me to question your logic, because I'm not fully seeing it yet.

He has also played the role of a supposedly experienced and knowledgeable leader, goading and coercing others with his bullying demeanor in what seems a clear hope to manipulate others' opinions.

It's "clear" that I'm trying to manipulate opinions? Where is it "clear" I've done this? You should back up accusations if you want them listened to. Also, if it's "clear" I'm manipulating people why not put a vote on me to see how I'll react? In my opinion my largest bit of bullying was trying to stop a quick lynch of lotg and also bullying of people whom I think are being too quiet. Both of these actions, I feel, will help the true Imperium servants amongst us and I question why they seem so "suspicious" to a sister of the cloth.

Finally, when confronted with the merest hint of criticism he immediately abandoned all other accusations to point his treacherous finger at me.

You criticized me? When? You offered up a different investigation style, I asked you to explain how you felt it would help - you avoided the question in what I perceive as a suspicious manner so I voted for you and explained why I was voting for you. I do believe at least two of you have or had votes on me at one time or another - if I was really so jumpy why wouldn't I be leaping all over them?

Need I go on?"

Well, i expressed some issues with your logic and conclusions I'd like to have you expound on a bit, yes.

Lord-Loss wrote:Him and Arcti_Fangi seem to be working together, Im a keepin' a close eye on both ya.

That's a good question and a good idea. You should be keeping an eye out for people who occasionally seem a little too buddy-buddy and sure of each other.

However, the real question is how are we working together? You said we 'seem' to be working together - what evidence do you have to support this claim? Unsupported accusations are suspicious looking.

I did not lie, what I told you was getting my mind in order.

lord of the ghosts wrote:I did not lie, what I told you was getting my mind in order.

....okay?

lord of the ghosts wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

lord of the ghosts wrote:VOTE:thor !!!

Do you have some reasons you're voting me?

Yes.

lord of the ghosts wrote:as my reason is unclear, even to me, yet, thor has voted for my death, then I shall his

If you didn't lie and needed to get your mind in order about the vote and the reasons you were voting for me...well, what were those reasons? Is your mind in order yet? It's okay if you didn't have a solid reason - but then your answer should have been "I have a gut feeling" or "I want to see how he reacts". But you said you had reasons and then said those reasons were unclear to you - that looks really bad.

Thor, you are very desperate to insist that everyone agree with you. Mores specifically, you want everyone to hold it as the Emperor-given truth that

(1) all of your actions and thoughts are based on unbiased, logical assessment--when in fact they are merely hunches and opinions like the rest of ours

(2) that you alone know how to successfully hunt down the traitors--a claim that you must know none of us can be willing to trust at any juncture--and

(3) that the rest of us should learn from, emulate, and/or subscribe to your tactics and opinions because to do otherwise makes us suspicious--which is very clearly a method of trying to control how everyone else behaves.

The unspoken premise that I believe you are trying to subtlety communicate is that you could not possibly be a traitor. You want the rest of us to trust and follow you. You want to discredit those who refuse to by claiming their thoughts and actions are unfounded, illogical, or otherwise suspicious.

Your accusations are not the only threat tactic you employ. You also constantly try to dare or bait others into voting for you while decrying self-voting. Aren't they simply two facets of the same tactic? The distinction seems one meant to confuse rather than clarify.

Simply put, I believe that you are the most suspicious of all of us. I will not accuse you more formally than that because I admit to being annoyed at your shameful impertinence. My anger will be righteous, not self-righteous. If I must kill--while I am no uphiver, I am also not a Sister Militant--I will do so because His wrath rather than mine demands it.

Manchu, you're annoying.
VOTE:Manchu

And you, LotG, are band-wagon voting.

Could LOG and Thor be working together. That self-sacrifice thing could all be an act!

Manchu wrote:And you, LotG, are band-wagon voting.

No, you are just annoying.

No act, don't worry.
If I was working on an act, I would still be acting.

TRYING TO KILL PEOPLE FOR ANNOYING YOU IS WHAT BAD GUYS DO. WE GOTTA FIGHT ALIENS NOT KILL PEOPLE FOR BAD REASONS.

UNVOTE: MANCHU

VOTE: LORD OF GHOSTS

Manchu wrote:Thor, you are very desperate to insist that everyone agree with you. Mores specifically, you want everyone to hold it as the Emperor-given truth that

I am desperate to have everyone use good logic and open debate and discussion. Other then that they can disagree with me all they like.

(1) Hunches and opinions backed up by evidence as I see it. I have been insisting that people openly explain why they are doing what they are doing. Yes, I am attempting my deductions from logic but I don't recall ever saying that they were more (or less) accurate then any other chosen method unless that method chose not to use explanations or reasons for any given vote. I'm also not a fan of people not talking to each other.

(2) So I'm making a claim I know you all can't trust? When did I do this - I note last time I asked for you to produce evidence for your claims against me and you are once again making accusations without any clear evidence of any sort. Why is it so important for you to discredit me? I also do stand by the belief that my chosen method of encouraging conversation is superior to a method that involves lurking.

(3) So you believe my insistence on explaining the reasons behind votes and my insistence on people talking and not lurking are bad for the us and good for the traitors? Or did you mean some other type of control? Which control is it if not those I have mentioned?

The unspoken premise that I believe you are trying to subtlety communicate is that you could not possibly be a traitor. You want the rest of us to trust and follow you. You want to discredit those who refuse to by claiming their thoughts and actions are unfounded, illogical, or otherwise suspicious.

I have explained why I feel your answers are illogical when I made the accusations against you - you have responded by throwing more accusations at me that you do not explain logically why they make sense. You have also not directly explained why your methods were superior or suportable in an attempt to beat my logic. And yes, I am claiming to not be a traitor, I'm also trying to be overt in that message - do you expect someone to claim to be a traitor? If so I think you'll have a long wait ahead of you.

Your accusations are not the only threat tactic you employ. You also constantly try to dare or bait others into voting for you while decrying self-voting. Aren't they simply two facets of the same tactic? The distinction seems one meant to confuse rather than clarify.

It almost seems odd to have to explain the difference. Self voting is bad, because we want people to get a chance to see voting patterns as this process moves forward. If someone self votes they take away our chance to see who might try to vote to get them lynched, therefore denying us a piece of evidence. I encourage people to vote for me if they feel I am suspicious, just as I encourage them to vote for anyone they feel is suspicious. To be quite frank, I was questioning people who were saying things like "Thor seems suspicious" because they didn't add in a vote with that feeling of suspicion. Why would they do this? Generally speaking your vote should be on the person you find most suspicious - and the only caveat to that is to avoid dropping the final vote too early as the rest of us may want a chance to discuss the potential lynch more. Trying to put suspicion on someone without putting a vote on them seems scummy to me because it feels like you're maybe trying to convince someone else to vote before you do so you can more quietly slip along in a supporting role later. I would be comfortable if someone were lynched by voting (even if it were me, though I think that would be a mistake) but I wouldn't be comfortable if as the votes were piling up the person who was being voted out suddenly voted for themselves and got themselves lynched. If you still don't understand how I draw the difference ask and I shall explain further.

Simply put, I believe that you are the most suspicious of all of us. I will not accuse you more formally than that because I admit to being annoyed at your shameful impertinence. My anger will be righteous, not self-righteous. If I must kill--while I am no uphiver, I am also not a Sister Militant--I will do so because His wrath rather than mine demands it.

Personally I don't like your logic, as I've explained above, but let me ask you this. If I am the most suspicious what do you see as the advantage to all the loyal Imperials here in you not voting for me?

Lord-Loss wrote:Could LOG and Thor be working together. That self-sacrifice thing could all be an act!

I thought I was working with Artik? At least this time you actually tried to include some potential evidence with your accusation. What do you see as the concept of the plan between us? Did we know going in that our plan would be for lotg to act suspicious, get a lot of votes on him, self-vote, and then have me tell him not to self-vote?

lord of the ghosts wrote:No act, don't worry.
If I was working on an act, I would still be acting.

You still haven't answered my last question about what you were thinking as far as your reasons/no reasons period. Have you come up with the reasons now that you have thought about them? Why did you say you had reasons when you couldn't express them?

((OOC I'd also like to request a vote count tally - we've had a bit of action lately and I don't trust myself to be on top of it all.))

Also, ::spits chewing root juice:: I will reiterate, even if a lot of you think someone is guilty please do not drop the final vote on them. We want to have time to properly work over the evidence and make sure it's a good idea to perform the lynch. Haste helps traitors.

"Humanity no longer has an Emperor," Firangi mutters to no one in particular, "it has an empire, which struggles each day against threats from within and without. In our midst are many cults, some of which make their presence more immediate than others. I do wonder if it would not be advantageous for a gene-snatcher cult to plant its treacherous seed within a more respectable 'organisation'... Lord-Loss, blood of the Twelve. Sister Joan, of the Ecclesiarchy. Thor, a contemptible thug. These inconspicuous abhumans... All very suitable places to hide, and yet, there are others aboard this vessel we know next to nothing about. Upon this vessel, I sincerely believe that loose lips are in order."

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CRAZY MAN. THE EMPEROR IS GREAT CHIEF. HE FIGHTS BAD GUYS AND OGRYNS HELP HIM.

ORKEO HELP HIM FIND BAD GUYS ON SHIP

My entire post was a clarification of my thought process. You asked me to clarify my suspicions of you, did you not? I did so. But all you have done is claim that I have thrown more accusations at you. Isn't it clear that these do not constitute more accusations but rather a restatement and explanation of the original ones? I don't know how you can be so dense unless you're purposely trying to discredit me with your long-winded but woefully insubstantially speeches.

Let me emphasize these points: You claiming again and again and again that your methods are superior does not actually convince me that this is the case. Similarly, your protest that you have been transparent does not make me feel that your true motives are not hidden. Your constant baiting of me and everyone else to vote for you is extremely suspicious especially when considered against your warnings against self-lynching and casting the lynching vote. It seems like you are setting yourself up as untouchable while preparing whoever happens to be the last vote--regardless of his or her motivations--to take the fall as a traitor.

Finally, I never advocated "lurking" but have refused--and continue to refuse--to throw out random votes to harass people into defending themselves because none of us--including yourself--actually has evidence to refute those random accusations. Your willingness to perpetually harass others on the thinnest of pretenses coupled with your insistence that everyone else do likewise, especially when considered against your warning against being the deciding vote, seems severely disingenuous. Again, you seem to be trying to control how others behave while forcing the rest of us to consider your innocence a proven matter of fact.

Innocence--especially the kind you're insisting on--proves nothing.

I will not allow myself to be strong-armed into voting for you just because you threaten me with "looking suspicious." I will vote--and I definitely will vote for a lynch--when I am ready to do so and not just because some scummy hiver tells me I must.

*Edit for lots of spelling and grammatical mistakes.

Thor665 wrote:He also hopped on that vote wagon after I was trying to get everyone to calm down. ::chews his root chaw thoughtfully before spitting some out towards Lord-Loss.:: Where's the fire, buddy?

I'd also like to hear a bit more form some of our quieter friends.

@n0t_u - what made you want to vote for Lord-Loss when you did?

I'm not quieter, I'm in a different time zone, probably 15 hours ahead of your own.

His story is kind of contradicting, but the real reason was that he said the Eldar didn't do it. The only reason someone would say that is if they actually know otherwise the Eldar is actually as much of a suspect as everyone else. There is not much evidence to say the Eldar did it, but also not much to say he didn't. It just seemed suspicious that someone would be so sure about something like that so early in.

No, Arctik_Firangi, you seemed to be trying to get information from it. While it was kind of showing sympathy with the Xenos it was the most likely way to try to get information about it. If there was a Commissar on board he probably would have shot you for showing it kindness though.


As for the vote, at the time it seemed like the most likely one for me to vote for. But, the votes seem to be all over the place at the moment. So I might unvote until someone else seems more likely. There are a few actually that I suspect at the moment, but I will not reveal who they are. That would just create enemies

Unvote: Lord-Loss

Manchu wrote:My entire post was a clarification of my thought process. You asked me to clarify my suspicions of you, did you not?

I've also asked you a lot of questions and to show me where I have said or done the things you say I am doing. You haven't done that yet, therefore expect me to continue to act like you are just throwing around accusations. ::he shrugs:: Without evidence offered what do you expect my responses to be?

Let me emphasize these points: You claiming again and again and again that your methods are superior does not actually convince me that this is the case.

What about when I keep asking you to explain how your method will be helpful? Have you considered this? If my method is not superior surely you have measured you method and found it to be at least as functional. I have explained why I feel my method is superior and your method is inferior. You have explained that my method is evil and have said your method involves not talking much. Do not expect much respect from me towards your method in this light.

Similarly, your protest that you have been transparent does not make me feel that your true motives are not hidden.

Nor should it. But at least I'm explaining fully how I am reaching conclusions so people can either assault or agree with the logic used. I suppose I could just sit around and make claims without offering evidence - but I fail to see how that would help. Which method do you think is better and why? What method would you prefer to see people using? Why?

Your constant baiting of me and everyone else to vote for you is extremely suspicious especially when considered against your warnings against self-lynching and casting the lynching vote.

As I have said, I do not support people saying "Thor is most suspicious" but not putting a vote on me. Again I will ask, if someone finds someone else "most suspicious" why not vote them? You have thrown around suspicions but no vote and act like somehow that sets you above my method - okay, fine, your method is better. Can you explain why that is, though? As far as self vote versus encouraging votes for me - I have explained why they are different. Is there a part of my explanation you did not understand? You asked and I answered, continuing to act like its evil without at least mentioning what I did or did not already explain seems strange and suspicious to me.

It seems like you are setting yourself up as untouchable while preparing whoever happens to be the last vote--regardless of his or her motivations--to take the fall as a traitor.

What I am attempting to set up is a situation where we don't suddenly mob up and lynch someone without reasoned discussion. The last vote is potentially just as much a traitor as the first vote. The most likely traitorous votes are those made suddenly and without explanation.

Finally, I never advocated "lurking" but have refused--and continue to refuse--to throw out random votes to harass people into defending themselves because none of us--including yourself--actually has evidence to refute those random accusations.

And yet again - so how do you advise we proceed? Show me a better way and I will happily readjust. So far your advice still seems to be "no loose lips" which if we all took that tack we would very quickly find the traitors as the victors, wouldn't we? Already apparently my actions, to your eyes, seems suspicious. Therefore haven't you managed to gather some evidence from people talking and interacting? That seems to support my method over your quiet method because it has actually started to generate information that you feel serves as evidence. By you posting questions and accusations at me we have begun a dialogue that showcases the ways both of us are thinking - this provides evidence about each of us for everyone else to see. Once more - talking, accusations, and votes have produced information to be used as evidence. This is why I believe my style is superior to yours - if everyone was using my style we'd have no lurkers, and lots of conversation to draw conclusions from.

If everyone used your style we would have probably said hello and then sat in silence until the traitors killed again ((OOC aka the deadline.))

I know which method I feel is superior.

Innocence--especially the kind you're insisting on--proves nothing.

Silence, especially the kind you advocate, solves nothing. Your point being?

Also, you just got done accusing me of subvert claims of innocence. I came out with an overt claim of innocence and you got your panties in a wad again. Which way made you happier? Hive knows I could never figure out which way would please a woman, that's for sure.

n0t_u wrote:As for the vote, at the time it seemed like the most likely one for me to vote for. But, the votes seem to be all over the place at the moment. So I might unvote until someone else seems more likely. There are a few actually that I suspect at the moment, but I will not reveal who they are. That would just create enemies

I will remind you that your duty to The Imperium involves dealing with these traitors, not avoiding making enemies.

At the time you voted for Lord-Loss you said he appeared the "most likely." What did he do that made him appear more likely then anyone else at that time?

:Firangi hastily scratches the contents of the debate into his tome as it continues, briefly looking up as n0t_u mentions his name. His mechanical voice, crackling from within the heavy robes, returns.:

"The Commissar that would summarily execute an important Departmento Lexicanum servitor doing his duty would have his own reasons to fear judgement. On that note, should I be murdered during the course of this voyage, ensure that my cranium and upper torso is recovered and returned to my superiors. Compliance with this directorate is enforced - my department is always looking for new thralls..."

Firangi begins to speak with his human tongue; "...this tome, however, is for my personal use. My confidence in voting for Lord Loss was waning as others began to speak, but it has been reinforced by his past several statements."

Joan looks ready to slap the feth out of Thor but instead closes her eyes and bows her head. After a moment of silence and deep breath, she fixes him with her eyes suddenly clear of anger.

Thor665 wrote:Without evidence offered what do you expect my responses to be?

"You have yourself never offered a shred of evidence that is not actually a mere opinion, an unsupported assumption about someone's behavior. You proceed to weave these assumptions into 'evidence' by saying over and over 'that's suspicious, that's suspicious,' which I am sorry to remind you is not actually an argument.

What about when I keep asking you to explain how your method will be helpful?

"I have explained at least three times now why I think your method amounts to bullying and vote manipulation. Surely, my method--relying on my own insight rather than attempting to command everyone else's--can belegitimately preferable to me? Unlike you, I do not demand that everyone think and act exactly as I do. I do not expect that you could, actually, given your lack of Schola and Inquisitorial training. I do not insist that you stop trying to force everyone to your view while randomly accusing anyone and everyone. I have never demanded that you stop much less that you should adopt my thought process. I merely noted my disagreement with it and, when you pressed me about who I thought was suspicious, I also declared that I thought your way of doing things made you a likely traitor. You have responded violently and desperately to that comment, which strengthens my suspicions of you."

I do not support people saying "Thor is most suspicious" but not putting a vote on me.

"Whether we agree on this point or not is immaterial. I will not be forced to vote by you or anyone else. I will come to my own decision when I feel that I am untouched by the bias of anger or humiliation." She takes another deep breath. "I am currently unable to do so."

What I am attempting to set up is a situation where we don't suddenly mob up and lynch someone without reasoned discussion.

"Additionally, comments like these make me doubt that you are truly a traitor. I simply will not vote for you until I have more information about the others."

By you posting questions and accusations at me we have begun a dialogue that showcases the ways both of us are thinking - this provides evidence about each of us for everyone else to see.

"You see, your line of thought is not entirely without merit. What I object to the most is not communication, as I have said, but the seemingly random voting. Taking the conclusions about your method that you have just stated into account, I must say that Lord of the Ghosts is also a likely traitor given that he accused me for doing exactly what you claim is the most beneficial to our survival and the purging of those heretics among us."

Hive knows I could never figure out which way would please a woman, that's for sure.

Yet another deep breath, this time with her eyes closed. "I refuse to countenance the insult implied by such impious and undignified vulgarities."

ORKEO TRIED TO PLEASE WOMAN BUT BROKE HER NECK

NOW GEORGE WON'T LET ME PET NO RABBITS

Thor665 wrote:

n0t_u wrote:As for the vote, at the time it seemed like the most likely one for me to vote for. But, the votes seem to be all over the place at the moment. So I might unvote until someone else seems more likely. There are a few actually that I suspect at the moment, but I will not reveal who they are. That would just create enemies

I will remind you that your duty to The Imperium involves dealing with these traitors, not avoiding making enemies.

At the time you voted for Lord-Loss you said he appeared the "most likely." What did he do that made him appear more likely then anyone else at that time?

My commander aways told me to not fear the heretic, the pysker and the xenos. But, he did tell me to approach those with caution for deception is their main strength. Without it they are mearly a small bump in the road for the Imperium.

I thought I explained it in that post, it was because he seemed so sure that it wasn't actually the Xenos that killed Smash. It is still a posibility that the Eldar did kill smash simply as a way of getting the crew to fall apart into a witchhunt, distracting us so he can escape.

Arctik_Firangi, I would assume that he would do so seeing the kindness as a form of malfunction. But, I will ensure that the cranium and upper torso return to the Departmento Lexicanum, if they fall into the possession of the traitors they may have to be destroyed though. Hopefully they will not receive that opportunity.

OOC

Orkeosaurus wrote:ORKEO TRIED TO PLEASE WOMAN BUT BROKE HER NECK

NOW GEORGE WON'T LET ME PET NO RABBITS

I lol'd hard. "Where did he go? Where did he go?"

OOC

Orkeosaurus wrote:ORKEO TRIED TO PLEASE WOMAN BUT BROKE HER NECK

NOW GEORGE WON'T LET ME PET NO RABBITS

I see what you did there

@ Orkeo - did you pet them enough? It makes a difference if you do it everyday.

Manchu wrote:

Thor665 wrote:Without evidence offered what do you expect my responses to be?

"You have yourself never offered a shred of evidence that is not actually a mere opinion, an unsupported assumption about someone's behavior. You proceed to weave these assumptions into 'evidence' by saying over and over 'that's suspicious, that's suspicious,' which I am sorry to remind you is not actually an argument.

In your posts you made multiple claims about things I said while talking ((posting)). I asked you multiple times in my replies to quote me ((the posts)). Would these not count as evidence to support your theories of how to interperet my actions? That is the evidence I was talking about.

As far as the suspicious thing - I would ask you to remind (quote) me where I said something was suspicious without explaining explicitly what it was I thought was suspicious and some reasoning behind it. I've certainly called other people on it when they make such actions.

manchu wrote:

By you posting questions and accusations at me we have begun a dialogue that showcases the ways both of us are thinking - this provides evidence about each of us for everyone else to see.

"You see, your line of thought is not entirely without merit. What I object to the most is not communication, as I have said, but the seemingly random voting.

And what I was accusing you of was your statement that your 'style' involved avoiding "loose lips" (which as I understand it means talking - and I will continue to say that seems a bad idea). To my mind this *was* you saying you were against conversation - what did you mean by the loose lips line if not this? Also, at the beginning, I still stand by random opening votes as the best way to start conversation - after all, didn't it? Besides - this seems to me the first time you've really called me on the random voting to start conversations - you seemed more focused on discussing how I was bullying people and trying to act above suspicion, though I don't understand why acting in a way that seems above suspicion is any more suspicious then lurking and not saying much.

Taking the conclusions about your method that you have just stated into account, I must say that Lord of the Ghosts is also a likely traitor given that he accused me for doing exactly what you claim is the most beneficial to our survival and the purging of those heretics among us."

It's certainly interesting. Why don't you ask him to expand on his logic some more? Or are you asking me to do it for you? Are you attempting to redirect me?

manchu wrote:

Hive knows I could never figure out which way would please a woman, that's for sure.

Yet another deep breath, this time with her eyes closed. "I refuse to countenance the insult implied by such impious and undignified vulgarities."

Aw, c'mon, don't take it too hard. I'm sure being taught about avoiding loose lips has many applications for your organization ::he gives a double pistol finger point with a smirking grin:: a poor Underhiver like me probably just don't understand all the implications.

n0t_u wrote:
Arctik_Firangi, I would assume that he would do so seeing the kindness as a form of malfunction. But, I will ensure that the cranium and upper torso return to the Departmento Lexicanum, if they fall into the possession of the traitors they may have to be destroyed though. Hopefully they will not receive that opportunity.

:Firangi pauses and taps his chin with his scribe:

"An Imperial Commissar watching me study xenos is surely shirking his own duties," he muses, before the electronic voice breaks out with, "and I needn't mention that the removal of my skull would deprive me of little more than my secondary ocular and vocal systems..."

"My machine-host digresses," Firangi interrupts. He places his scribe in the clamp of his lower mechadendrite and allows it to continue writing as he speaks.

"This banter grows tiresome. The only way to examine the behaviour of our companions on this ship is by provoking it. Beyond that, we are nothing to each other but what we claim to be. I could hypothesise that it would be in the interests of these gene-snatchers to implant a male and female pair, and there is only one female suspect upon this ship... but this is not a densely populated hive. There would be no purpose. I could say, as I have, that the Ogryn would make a prime cantidate in this enclosed ship, but we are dealing with treacherous xenos... I only expect ther methods to be unexpected. We cannot hope for them to simply reveal themselves. We can only hope for them to slip up. Lord of the Ghosts has done so to some degree, but he is either an impressive idiot or a distraction that must be inored. Lord-Loss has otherwise been fairly consistent in his suspicious behaviour and is my vote at the present time. I am in league with Thor only so far as I think it is prudent that we cast accusation at this stage. I otherwise trust him no more than I trust anyone... but for myself."