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.

Chaos can take root anywhere, he would keep watch on all in his presence. But, I digress, it's not the time to debate this. If we do it mearly gives the enemy an edge over us.

I meant if you had been killed, I sometimes forget how much detail is required when talking to servitors. You asked for it to be returned if you were killed I simply said I would return them if that were to happen.

I agree with you though. We should suspect everyone and trust no one at the moment, even you could be a Gene Stealer. You do seem fairly advanced for a servitor, but that could just be from the role you are assigned. I, however, am not going to ally myself with anyone yet, until it is clear what is happening it would simply be a mistake. After some thought I realise I should have kept my vote rather than dismiss it.

Vote: Lord-Loss

"The scribe makes some good points but I still refuse to be forced into acting against my conscience, which has been formed by Living Saints."

She looks at Thor: "We will undoubtedly remain suspicious of one another but this debate must eventually end lest we continue to argue even as the traitors slit our own throats. (OOC: I'm not going quote-hunting through the thread out of IRL laziness and I think I have good RP reasons, too.) Observing your manner of bullying the others--and random accusations are the chief examples of that bullying--leads me to be suspicious of your motives and I will not go through why for a fourth time nor will I scour the scribe's notes to find specific quotations. I'm sure you would simply claim that I was misrepresenting you in any case given your penchant for either misrepresenting or mishearing nearly everything that I have said to you."

She crosses her arms and plants her feet. "And again I am still not going to be coerced into voting by you or anyone else."

"As for redirecting you to Lord of the Ghosts, I simply pointed out that he was actually guilty of denouncing your favorite tactic--endless argument--while I have worked up the patience to indulge it this long. As for confronting him myself, I already accused him of being a band-wagon voter and he responded with a meaningless reiteration of his argument-in-fact against open conversation. What puzzles me, therefore, is why you don't attempt to make him your whipping boy as you have done to me. Is it because he is following your lead by voting for me? Is it because you have already successfully protected him once and don't want to go on the offensive against him yourself?"

"Let me spell this out for you so that you don't attempt to turn it back on me as you have nearly everything else I have tried to communicate to you: I have already confronted him about it and found his response more damning than convincing. Now I am confronting you about it."

"I am certainly not so advanced that I would be unaffected by tyranid gene manipulation... My augmentations are pretty basic... merely a vox recorder and player, powered right arm with modular wrist-socket, three modular mechadendrites, a Mark III Ipsus plasma battery array, a biological memory function digitiser with two seperate storage decks, an Ultio-class melee override system in case I need to be re-fitted for combat purposes... or if my physical body is killed... all of the typically required heat transference systems and exhaust vents, and this extremely useful scribe-extruder. I'm forever losing the things... after all, other than that, I'm only human."

(OOC: applauds Arctik-Firangi!)

Ah, I simply assumed that you had been lobotomised like most servitors. That means that you can become a traitor like the others.

*Also applauds Firangi*

Manchu wrote:I will not go through why for a fourth time nor will I scour the scribe's notes to find specific quotations.

Your desire to not do the work to produce quotes I do not believe exist is so noted.

Manchu wrote: I'm sure you would simply claim that I was misrepresenting you in any case given your penchant for either misrepresenting or mishearing nearly everything that I have said to you."

I do think you're misrepresenting me as I have discussed at length. You keep repeating the same arguments instead of going in and explaining what I am apparently misrepresenting. Feel free to point out where I'm misrepresenting you - then we can have a conversation about it. Otherwise...::shrug::. I've pointed out where I feel you misrepresent me, specifically and explicitly.

She crosses her arms and plants her feet. "And again I am still not going to be coerced into voting by you or anyone else."

And I will note again, for the past two or three times I've simply been asking you *why* you feel this is a better strategy then voting. You still fail to answer and act like I'm the one not accurately responding. ::shrug::

"As for redirecting you to Lord of the Ghosts, I simply pointed out that he was actually guilty of denouncing your favorite tactic--endless argument--while I have worked up the patience to indulge it this long. As for confronting him myself, I already accused him of being a band-wagon voter and he responded with a meaningless reiteration of his argument-in-fact against open conversation. What puzzles me, therefore, is why you don't attempt to make him your whipping boy as you have done to me. Is it because he is following your lead by voting for me? Is it because you have already successfully protected him once and don't want to go on the offensive against him yourself?"

If you go back and read you will note that I have been having a conversation with lotg for some time now. I am still working on getting answers out of him for his actions earlier - I shall work up to more recent actions as we move along (for the record, I didn't read it as a specific attack against my style, as you did. Instead I read it as a simple unsupported attack against you). If I was totally ignoring him your argument would have some validity to it, but I have not and am not ignoring him. If you think his actions are so scummy then, for the record, maybe you should pursue him for the way he answered your question- asking a single question and getting an answer that isn't satisfactory shouldn't equate to going "well, that investigation is done."

You are also a reasonable whipping boy (girl?) due to your habit of ducking questions - so I'll ask another one you've still failed to answer yet again; 'What *did* you mean with that loose lips comment? I still feel it was suggestive of you implying we shouldn't have extended conversations.

"Let me spell this out for you so that you don't attempt to turn it back on me as you have nearly everything else I have tried to communicate to you: I have already confronted him about it and found his response more damning than convincing. Now I am confronting you about it."

So what specifically do you want from this confrontation that I have not already answered? Ask me a question and get an answer. What about my previous answer wasn't enough? I will quote your confrontation for you;

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."

Please point out the question.

It sounded more like an innuendo to me and an attempt to shift the focus off yourself. Please don't act like I ducked a question when you didn't ask one. I also did address the general topic in my initial response.

Quite simply put, you continue to insist that I do things your way and threaten me when I refuse by claiming that it is suspicious.

You want me to hunt down your quotes. I say no because that is not my method. Why should I find more examples of your bullying when every post you write is an example. You don't need to hear it from me because you've just said it yourself.

You want me to state suspicions in the form of a question. I refuse because that is totally unnecessary. I have explained my suspicions of you and the fact that your persist in the same behavior has not lessened them. More specifically, I have asked you why you aren't asking questions to LotG about his stance that my attempt at frank and sincere responses to your goading is just "annoying" while his responses to you are puzzling nonsequitors. You have only just answered that question, if you can call it an answer. I don't need to give you a question mark to confront you with a suspicion and you don't need get a question mark from me to dodge my suspicions. Your actions make this clear.

To continue being frank, I think you've just dodged the question altogether by re-interpreting your self-confessed protection of LotG as an investigation.

Speaking of which, you criticize me for leaving LotG's poor explanation of his behavior to one side after calling him on his obvious attempts to do your bidding. But I do not feel compelled to respond further to a person that so utterly refuses to explain himself--once again, you attempting to force me to do things your way rather than my wa. But this brings me back to that question: why are you so intent on interrogating me while you let him brazenly get away with it?

Let me draw up three possibilities for you. First, you and LotG are traitorous co-conspirators who think the best place to hide is in the open. Second, the only reason you're harping on me is because I am the only one bothering to pay you much attention at the moment. If the first is true, then we should hang you immediately. If the second is true, then we agree much more deeply than either of us have cared to admit so far--at least amidst most of the others who have been comparatively silent for a while now. Third, you are a traitor and you have been bullying me because you think that posting a big speech broken up with a lot of quotes that you have either not properly read or are willfully misunderstanding will convince everyone else to suspect me and take it for granted that you are a faithful Imperial Citizen.

I have told you so many times why I think I won't randomly vote and loudly harass the seemingly innocent while conveniently ignoring the seemingly guilty (what I was getting a with "loose lips") but I see that I must again summarize the points:

(1) I will not be coerced into voting. That is the easiest way for a traitor to get us all to do his own dirty work.

(2) I do not think random or all-but-random voting produces accurate results. It's a lose-lose situation: you're damned if you don't defend yourself and your damned if you do. You will end up persecuting an Imperial Citizen, like myself. It's lose-lose, that is, for everyone but the accuser because . . .

(3) It is a treacherous tactic that a traitor would use to distract away attention from himself (especially useful while he is shouting "vote for me now that I've voted for you," trying to bait you into looking like a traitor by getting you to revenge-vote out of fear or anger) and focus suspicions on a loyal Citizen, like myself.

I anticipate that instead of having listened to me, however, you will have been getting ready to say "you're suspicious for not quoting me" or "you still haven't answered this question [that turns out to have been just answered for the fourth or fifth time]" or "I'm not asking questions to a more clearly guilty parties because you made an off-hand remark about loose lips and besides I already asked him to clarify something totally unrelated to the thing you're asking about."

((OCC:OKay, that's it for me tonight. See everyone tomorrow.))

OOC
Thor's repetition is simply trying to make someone slip up, a good tactic, but it does look fairly annoying to have it directed at you. Just remember Thor, if you annoy the wrong people you will likely not live past the first night phase. Just try to keep that in mind and not go too overboard

seems to me, that this is getting knowhere. but i disgress, i dont recall being told a sister would be on the journy at the beginning?

n0t_u wrote:OOC
Thor's repetition is simply trying to make someone slip up, a good tactic, but it does look fairly annoying to have it directed at you. Just remember Thor, if you annoy the wrong people you will likely not live past the first night phase. Just try to keep that in mind and not go too overboard

((OOC)) First off, my goal is to catch traitors, not live past Night Phase 1

2nd off, I am repeating myself only insomuch as Manchu isn't answering questions - so let's break down a single discussion thread with Manchu rather then replying to his whole post and see what we can see. What you'll find below is an isolated out part of the conversation Manchu and I have been having. I believe it will showcase why I feel he is dodging questions and reinterpreting what I am asking for his own purposes. Is it absolute proof that he is a traitor? No. Is it a reasonable hook upon which to hang my vote? I believe so, yes.
===============================

Here is my first direct interaction with Joan.

@Manchu - Lady? Joan, you have cast doubts on the xenos, which I agree with, but surely you must have some further thoughts to offer. Whom do you think, amongst us, thus far has seemed the most questionable in action (or inaction). Is there a reason you're withholding your vote for the moment?

Here is the reply to this question.

Manchu wrote:"Another thing I learned at Schola was to be seen and not heard. That lesson served me well at the blessed Convent Prioris, too. The Canoness Superior herself advises in her Manual of Devotional Forensics 'render not the pure mind vulnerable to the heretic's scrutiny.' As a Guard Captain once put it to my Mission's Palatine, 'no loose lips on the black ships.'"

I didn't like the way that loose lips comment sounded, because it sounded to me like the whole comment was basically saying 'let's not talk too much' so I decided to apply some pressure.

Thor wrote:So...your "answer" to my question is to say that you don't feel that you should say much of anything? How exactly do you see that helping us find the traitors?

I will note so far I have been asking *why* no vote and *why* that Joan thinks this loose lips thing will be helpful.

Manchu wrote:"What I see, layman, is that your making a show of bullying everyone else could either be a rather convenient mask for sinful, traitorous thoughts or simply idiocy in the face of an enemy too cunning for you. I hope that insight will satisfy your inordinately loud curiosity."

Again my question is not answered, is it really such an unreasonable question? I do not think so. But now I have been insulted instead of the question being responded to. At this point I vote for Lady Joan because I believe she is dodging my questions and that's a reasonable reason to be suspicious of someone. Sister Joan responded to some other tells (I am most fascinated by Orkeo's suspicions on her which she claims are reasonable and valid while mine are not). and then;

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

I "abandoned all other accusations?" First off I only had one vote out there, on Lord-Loss, and that I had put out for an openly stated random reason. I had also, to my mind, not abandoned other accusations since at the very least in one of my replies I was still pushing on lotg. My reply was thus;

Thor wrote: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.

Lady Joan then locks onto what I take as a reinterpretation of my comments. I had said to her that if (as she said) I was most suspicious, why didn't she vote for me? To a certain extent I was asking my original question in a different way - because my original question still hadn't been answered. She replied;

Manchu wrote: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.

I explain what i meant by the most suspicious vote thing...

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

Manchu wrote: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.

Again, this insitance that I am trying to "force" her to vote when what I feel I have been doing is trying to "force" her to explain why she feels not voting is a good idea. At least this time she somewhat answers by saying "well, I am so filled with anger it would be unwise to vote right now." ...okay? Were you filled with anger back at the beginning of our discussion? This seems a weak sidestep once again but is the closest I've seen to her answering my original question. (apparently it is reasonable to talk about how poor my methods are while filled with anger though...::shrug: In any case...

I then offer up a reply to her where I can't even see me pressing this issue ((the 2nd to last post on the bottom of page 5 - if you can find what Manchu was responding to please post it up)) Her sudden response included this;

Manchu wrote:She crosses her arms and plants her feet. "And again I am still not going to be coerced into voting by you or anyone else."

Here is where I finally try to shove the shank back at her as her continual misrepresentations have been annoying to me;

And I will note again, for the past two or three times I've simply been asking you *why* you feel this is a better strategy then voting. You still fail to answer and act like I'm the one not accurately responding. ::shrug::

Manchu then, perhaps finally, after all this time, answers the question;

Manchu wrote:(1) I will not be coerced into voting. That is the easiest way for a traitor to get us all to do his own dirty work.

I will note he frames his answer by claiming he is repeating what he has said - I disagree with that assessment unless he is claiming it should have been inferred from his posts or somesuch. But, whatever, he has finally answered the question...Okay - so you will vote once you're not angry but you feel voting is the work of the traitor? I thought voting was our way or rooting out and lynching the traitors. This feels like only part of an answer.

I would like to know how you think voting will help traitors and not help us. If we shouldn't vote what should we be doing?

Also, I'm unimpressed with your lotg point and will happily attack that later, but I'd like to leave just one subject out there - I think it will help us stay more focused.

ghosty wrote:seems to me, that this is getting knowhere. but i disgress, i dont recall being told a sister would be on the journy at the beginning?

What are you talking about, scummer? She's been with us throughout the hunt for the xenos. ((OOC the backstory has us all as a group of operatives/hired guns/ect. who were helping Smash capture the Eldar))

N0t_u wrote:Vote: Lord-Loss

Do you have any evidence to back this up, or are you simply voting on a whim.

Thor665 wrote:Manchu then, perhaps finally, after all this time, answers the question

I answered the question from the beginning and several times after. I wasn't acting like you (casting random votes and loudly harassing the targets of those votes) because I think that is the way a traitor behaves. My answer was given in the form of telling you that I thought you were suspicious, i.e., I won't do the thing that I believe is of benefit to taitors rather than faithful servants of the Emperor. You constantly demand that you should call the tune while the rest of us dance. For example, as I have told you many times now, you didn't seem to notice that I answered because it as not in the "Thor-approved" format for Thor's "answer-just-like-I want-you to-or-you're-suspicious" questions.

Either you simply didn't notice or, as has been suggested, you did notice and have been willfully misrepresenting me to drum up suspicion against me and away from yourself. In that case, I've been right all along and you're only attacking me because you want to look like you are some kind of Inquisitor: beyond reproof because you are so qualified to accuse others.

Okay - so you will vote once you're not angry but you feel voting is the work of the traitor? I thought voting was our way or rooting out and lynching the traitors. This feels like only part of an answer.

I would like to know how you think voting will help traitors and not help us. If we shouldn't vote what should we be doing?

This is a prime example of the way you have been twisting what I said in order to make it appear to the others that I am a traitor. I never said I would not vote at all. In fact, I said I would definitely vote for a lynch. What I said over and over is that I will not vote just because you tell me to do so. I also said, and reiterate here for the second or third time, that I think you are just trying to bait me into revenge-voting for either you or LotG so that you can twist that into looking suspicious. I'm not going to let you set me up. I think the others are starting to see that you have been repeating yourself again and again when you already have gotten all of the answers you are looking for. You're really just fulfilling my suspicions of you, at least that's how I see it, by continuing to bully me for now reason other than to make yourself look intimidating and above suspicion.

And look who is really avoiding questions (after pontificating about "ask me a question and I will answer it"):

Also, I'm unimpressed with your lotg point and will happily attack that later, but I'd like to leave just one subject out there - I think it will help us stay more focused.

yeah, your right thor, she has been eith us the whole trip.....but, i dont remember in the debreifing anything about any god-damn nuns.....she just turned up

ooc: now may of got this horribly wrong, as i usually do, but i thought the classes were citazin, guardsmen, medic, inq, psyker, traitor, stealer and magus.
i cant see how she fits into it.
coreect if wrong, but she seems to fit the bill in an analytical point of view.

OOC: It's just a roleplay background. Thor is playing a hiver, for example. It's not a part of the game rules, just a dash of flavor for fun.

oh ive cocked up >< im so sorry, first game of this :(
ok can i take back whut i said?

((OOC: Don't worry about it.))

Manchu wrote:I answered the question from the beginning and several times after. ...My answer was given in the form of telling you that I thought you were suspicious, i.e., I won't do the thing that I believe is of benefit to taitors rather than faithful servants of the Emperor.

I outlined above what question I asked initially and how I thought you answered it and why how I interpreted that answer as a bad thing. You responded by saying you answered it right away. I quoted your "answer" and explained why I thought it was untrustworthy. What part of my logic specifically are you attacking here?

Manchu wrote:

Okay - so you will vote once you're not angry but you feel voting is the work of the traitor? I thought voting was our way or rooting out and lynching the traitors. This feels like only part of an answer.

I would like to know how you think voting will help traitors and not help us. If we shouldn't vote what should we be doing?

This is a prime example of the way you have been twisting what I said in order to make it appear to the others that I am a traitor. I never said I would not vote at all.

Neither did I say that you said that. I said not voting, using the present tense. You're misunderstanding - I am asking why you feel voting for someone will help traitors if you do agree that eventually we'll have to vote. What are we supposed to do in the meantime if you accept your loose lips concept and don't talk much and accept that we shouldn't vote yet either? I'm not following the overall logic.

Manchu wrote: In fact, I said I would definitely vote for a lynch. What I said over and over is that I will not vote just because you tell me to do so.

I am not telling you to vote. I am asking why if I'm "the most suspicious" you do not vote for me? Your answer thus far has been "I'm too angry to vote yet" which doens't make a lot of sense to me so much later from the initial flash of anger. Your other basic defense seems to be saying that I am trying to bully you into voting...well, that goes back to my overall question of what do you then feel is the advantage of not voting (at this particular moment) for the person who is "most suspicious"? Why shouldn't you vote for who you think is most suspicious? Your answer seems to be that I'm baiting you to vote for me. Okay? But does that mean I've always been the most suspicous and always baiting you and that's why you're not voting? It seems too conditional of an answer adjusted to cover past actions.

Manchu wrote:And look who is really avoiding questions (after pontificating about "ask me a question and I will answer it"):

Also, I'm unimpressed with your lotg point and will happily attack that later, but I'd like to leave just one subject out there - I think it will help us stay more focused.

That's because I was trying to actually get a clean answer out of you. Very well, let's examine your "question." For starters let's be honest about how much I was "dodging" it initially;

Manchu wrote:You want me to state suspicions in the form of a question. I refuse because that is totally unnecessary.

When you first posted the "question" you didn't ask a question. I had to ask you to ask a question. Also, I did state an answer to the general question of "why are you not pressuring lotg". I'll restate it here;

Thor wrote:If you go back and read you will note that I have been having a conversation with lotg for some time now. I am still working on getting answers out of him for his actions earlier - I shall work up to more recent actions as we move along (for the record, I didn't read it as a specific attack against my style, as you did. Instead I read it as a simple unsupported attack against you). If I was totally ignoring him your argument would have some validity to it, but I have not and am not ignoring him.

AFTER I posted that while pointing out that you hadn't asked a question you add this?

Manchu wrote:More specifically, I have asked you why you aren't asking questions to LotG about his stance that my attempt at frank and sincere responses to your goading is just "annoying" while his responses to you are puzzling nonsequitors. You have only just answered that question, if you can call it an answer. I don't need to give you a question mark to confront you with a suspicion and you don't need get a question mark from me to dodge my suspicions. Your actions make this clear.

So...

1. You ask me a question that isn't phrased like a question
2. I point out that it isn't phrased like a question and answer it anyway
3. You accuse me of dodging the question.

That's my read of the way things went down - how would you characterize them differently?

I'm also pressuring you more then him because you seem more likely to be a traitor. But for the very explicit - why haven't I called him out on that exact attack on you he made that "attacked my playstyle" - I will note that I did answer that explicitly, it's in the above quote from me

Thor wrote:for the record, I didn't read it as a specific attack against my style, as you did. Instead I read it as a simple unsupported attack against you

Do I think it was an attack on you? Yes.
Do I think it was supported? No.
Do I think it was logical? Maybe - but he offered no evidence so I'll lean towards no.
Am I ignoring that he said it? No, but I'm still working on some of his antics earlier in the conversation - I'll get to this one as I get to it.
Do I think he was supporting the concept of no communication like you said he was? No.

"ghosty, if what the Eldar alien tells us is true, then we are not facing any danger from heretics..."

(OOC, I presume we are facing genestealers, as that's the name of the game...)

"...which is a relief, as my area of expertise is xenos profiling. I was not informed that we would require a member of the Ecclesiarchy on this mission either, although certain classes of the Eldar leadership are often referred to as 'witches'. Perhaps you have heard the saying, 'no one expects the Inquisition'?"

OOC: At this point I take ghosty to be either a citizen or genestealer, rather than a support class, seeing as how he has failed to comprehend the other roles... Unless 'guardsman' and 'magus' are specific classes that I am unaware of. In games of mafia I am used to all involved roles being explained pre-game - although the cultist in the previous game was a cool surprise - as otherwise neither side knows what to look for. Hence I doubt that lotd was truly a Jester...

((OOC I'm not taking too much with Drk's setup at face value.

Thus far he's only referred to the scum as "a "a traitor" or "traitors" [em] Honestly for a while I was keeping a vague eye on everyone who's been saying Genestealer instead of traitor - but realized I was having to be on top of myself for saying it and also, as you noted, Drk used it in the name of the thread.

As to roles? Eh, he opted for a closed game - which do exist though I've never played one. He also won't even clarify the number of mafia - which I've never seen even in closed games, so...

As far as lotg goes - my gut read at the moment is all of his tells have been newbie tells not scum tells. But I'm not 100% sure on that one. The Jester comment was mostly a joke because of how painfully bad so many of his early posts were (I'm still trying to figure them out.). ))

::chews chaw.::

Orkeosaurus wrote: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

hmmm.
You have a point. UNVOTE: MANCHU
I am torn between trusting thor and being killed. I trust thor a bit to much, he might be a traitor, and if he is, and if he if lynched, lord-loss will say "he is a traitor-he was working with lord of the ghosts the whole time" then I die. but if I vote for thor, somebody will say "it's an act" and I die. (this is a thought sorting post)
Feel free to coment on my thoughts.

lord of the ghosts wrote:Feel free to coment on my thoughts.

As long as you're tossing over those thoughts you still haven't answered my last question seeking clarification about your early actions - of which I think a lot of the people currently voting for you are drawing inspiration.

((OOC - Also, be mindful about asking other people how to vote. It makes you look wishy-washy and perhaps like you just want to hop on an easy bandwagon. Also, how do you know the advice doesn't come from a Genestealer? Look at what people have posted, decide which actions seem more or less likely to come from a genestealer or an Imperial Citizen. Then vote for the player that seems most likely to be scum one way or the other. ))

Thor665 wrote:((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.))

(OOC: Sorry, I've been busy)

Voting Count #2

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

6 to lynch.

"And you were doing so well... But there is time..." The Eldar breathes in deeply "If you keep abusing me, I will be unrecognisible when or if we arrive in Terra, and your higher ups will beleive you have failed in your mission. You all will be executed for incompitence back on Terra. So, I would think it'd be safe to assume that the next person to hit, kick, spit on etc would be acting to kill you all"

(OOC:Ok, you've had your fun, but it's getting repetitive and anoying. Anyone who continues to do so, will have random events skewed negitively for everyone.

Speaking of random events, one should be coming up one page 10 or Day 2 which ever is first.)

Thor665 wrote:
(OOC anyone want to hazard a guess at a Jester role, because that's all I'm left with for lotg. A Jester role is one that fulfills its win condition by being the first to be lynched.

If he's not a Jester role then this is some of the worst gameplay I've almost ever seen.)

Thats a good idea, I'll keep it in mind

Orkeosaurus wrote:ORKEO IS VERY LOUD. SHOUT EVERYTHING.

"And they listen to you the least. Tells you something doesn't it."

Thor665 wrote:

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 agree. I would assume that it would be better to look for connections between people that AREN'T working together. Wouldn't you agree Thor665?"

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

(OOC: I thought the self-sacrifice thing was a staple on Genestealer games now, like an un written rule)

Thor665 wrote:

n0t_u wrote:OOC
Thor's repetition is simply trying to make someone slip up, a good tactic, but it does look fairly annoying to have it directed at you. Just remember Thor, if you annoy the wrong people you will likely not live past the first night phase. Just try to keep that in mind and not go too overboard

((OOC)) First off, my goal is to catch traitors, not live past Night Phase 1

(OOC: Living past Night Phase 1 and catching traitors aren't mutually exclusive.)


Also as a note:
As the mod-guy-person, when I post, I'll usually signify in some ways.

"When I say things in quotes, I'm speaking through the Eldar". This means, that you can respond to it in character
(OOC: When I'm saying things like this, I'm speaking Out Of Character, neither as a mod or the Eldar)
When I say things normally, it's as the mod.

Voting is not controlled by the Eldar. If I tallied the votes incorrectly, then it is simple human error. Please keep this in mind.

I would also like to know, LotG, why you were set to vote for me simply because you find me annoying? I appreciate that you've unvoted me but that still troubles me. Perhaps I am still somewhat insulted. Not everyone has as thick a skin as Thor would like to believe.

Manchu wrote:I would also like to know, LotG, why you were set to vote for me simply because you find me annoying? I appreciate that you've unvoted me but that still troubles me. Perhaps I am still somewhat insulted. Not everyone has as thick a skin as Thor would like to believe.

you annoied me by praiseing the emporer a bit too much towards thor.
I trust thor, and the emporer doesn't kill innocents, unless needed.

lord of the ghosts wrote:

Manchu wrote:I would also like to know, LotG, why you were set to vote for me simply because you find me annoying? I appreciate that you've unvoted me but that still troubles me. Perhaps I am still somewhat insulted. Not everyone has as thick a skin as Thor would like to believe.

you annoied me by praiseing the emporer a bit too much towards thor.
I trust thor, and the emporer doesn't kill innocents, unless needed.

"Like now" Laughed the Eldar

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:"I agree. I would assume that it would be better to look for connections between people that AREN'T working together. Wouldn't you agree Thor665?"

With a xenos? I'd rather not. I would say look for whatever connections you care to look for. SOmetimes it is the ones who seem too close, and sometimes the ones who seem too distant.

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

n0t_u wrote:OOC
Thor's repetition is simply trying to make someone slip up, a good tactic, but it does look fairly annoying to have it directed at you. Just remember Thor, if you annoy the wrong people you will likely not live past the first night phase. Just try to keep that in mind and not go too overboard

((OOC)) First off, my goal is to catch traitors, not live past Night Phase 1

(OOC: Living past Night Phase 1 and catching traitors aren't mutually exclusive.)

((OOC: Indeed you are correct - but one of them is my actual goal and entails my win condition. The other is a means to that end. If I can only do one I will stick to the catching of traitors every time. It's absolutely silly for someone playing pro-Imperium to worry about whether or not they'll live to Day 2 if it means they're weakening their efforts in hunting for scum.))

Thor665 wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:"I agree. I would assume that it would be better to look for connections between people that AREN'T working together. Wouldn't you agree Thor665?"

With a xenos? I'd rather not. I would say look for whatever connections you care to look for. SOmetimes it is the ones who seem too close, and sometimes the ones who seem too distant.

"Or those who have no connection at all" smirked the Eldar

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:"I agree. I would assume that it would be better to look for connections between people that AREN'T working together. Wouldn't you agree Thor665?"

With a xenos? I'd rather not. I would say look for whatever connections you care to look for. SOmetimes it is the ones who seem too close, and sometimes the ones who seem too distant.

"Or those who have no connection at all" smirked the Eldar

I like this Eldar.
Too bad we have to kill you *knees eldar in the face*
What did he do for death?
As I read, I have seen Eldar helping Imperial forces before.