Drk_Oblitr8r's Genestealer! Game 1: Over, Imperials Win.

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.

**Manchu**

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

(OOC: I think it's pretty obvious. Also, Thor and I were pretty much threatened with similar "random events" for being repetitive. *EDIT: Actually, I think I misread that. Seems like Drk_O meant beating the Eldar was getting repetitive and annoying. I guess I was being quite for nothing!)

**SagesStone**

Alright, I've decided to change my vote from Lord-Loss to LoG instead. Drky mentioned that the next person to do it would be doing it probably as a way of hurting the group. While it is probably unlikely that LoG is actually one of the Gene Steallers. Mostly though because we are no going to get anywhere unless we actually come to an agreement at some point. After re-reading most of this topic it does look like LoG is a fair bit more suspicious that Lord-Loss actually is.

Unvote: Lord-Loss

Vote: Lord of Ghosts

**Thor665**

::Spits out some chaw on the floor::

Okay, seeing as how that lord of the ghosts fellow is only one vote away from being lynched I would encourage...::takes a deep breath::...

NOBODY VOTE LOTG FOR A WHILE AS WE NEED TO DISCUSS THINGS!

@those voting lotg - I think it since we are very close to lynching lotg at this particular juncture that you all outline again the reasons you are voting for lotg and really consider if he is the best person to vote for.

((OOC - I will throw out the thought that you should consider - do you think his play is suspicious because he's playing a scum, or do you think it's suspicious because he's playing a game he's not good at or familiar with. Yes, this is a major consideration.

Ask yourself, if you were playing scum, how likely would it be for you to have acted the way lotg is.))

I will also offer up this old hiver's opinion, that there's a pretty good chance that if lotg isn't a traitor, then there is more then likely at least one of the triators who is currently voting for lotg.

**Thor665**

Manchu wrote:(OOC: I think it's pretty obvious. Also, Thor and I were pretty much threatened with similar "random events" for being repetitive. *EDIT: Actually, I think I misread that. Seems like Drk_O meant beating the Eldar was getting repetitive and annoying. I guess I was being quite for nothing!)

((OOC - at least that does explain why you suddenly stopped talking...not that I still don't think you're scummy looking

Yeah, Drk O made it fairly explicit that his only issue [for the nonce] was Eldar beatings.))

**Thor665**

n0t_u wrote:While it is probably unlikely that LoG is actually one of the Gene Steallers. Mostly though because we are no going to get anywhere unless we actually come to an agreement at some point.

n0t_u when you get to your reasoning I think this bit should *really* be explained. Why are you voting for someone who is "unlikely" to be a traitor? Just so people will agree who to lynch? That doesn't make sense.

**Lord-Loss**

See these chains ::points at Eldar's wrists::

Made of the stuff they make space marine armour from, Nothing could get out of that.

Im sure the Eldar didnt do it, but I know there to be traitors in our midst. If there working for the Eldar, I do not know. But for now we must ignore him.

The crowd of Terrans waiting his execution will take care of his torment ::spits at eldar's feet::

Thor, you seem keen on pressing votes, as well as bullying people and using mere 'ideas' against people.

**Thor665**

Lord-Loss wrote:Thor, you seem keen on pressing votes, as well as bullying people and using mere 'ideas' against people.

I'm guessing these are your reasons for voting for me?

Pressing Votes: Yes, I do think people should vote because votes are how we can gauge if people are acting in a way that is pro or anti Imperium. I'd rather get votes out so people can't suddenly hammer someone into a lynch without at least explaining why they are shifting their vote. - Why do you think this is a bad plan? How do you interpret "vote pressing" as bad?

2. Bullying people - this sounds like a parroting of Sister Joan's ((Manchu's)) logic - is it your logic too? I still stand by a belief that if I am bullying people, I'm trying to bully them to use logic and to explain where their votes are coming from. How is this different from "vote pressing". Why do you think my bullying for logic is bad? Am I doing some bullying that isn't the above stated bullying? If so where and what kind of bullying is it.

3. Using people's ideas against them: ...wha? Of course I am! I've even said as much to you openly before when you cried about me pointing out your bad logic earlier. If someone offers up an idea with no evidence or supporting thought process and I think it uses bad logic I will point it out or attack it or try to bait it into showcasing their poor actions in an attempt to find scum. Scum use poor logic in their voting, because they have to because they can't use good logic since that would lead to them. Therefore pointing out bad ideas and logic helps find scum! Also, if you think this is a good reason to vote for me...how is it different then you pointing out my bullying and vote pressing? Aren't those my ideas of how to find scum? Aren't you trying to showcase how they are bad ideas and use them to show I am scum? How does your third point stand up when you want to also use your first two points?

**Lord-Loss**

Idea's are Idea's that why there are ideas.

If I had some evidence it would be a theory, but using an idea as a reason to lynch someone, thats just wrong.

Bullying is bad, your trying to force people to vote too quickly. While just four posts ago you asked people to slow down and think before voting (Even after some explained there votes with logic)

**Mekboy**

Lord-Loss wrote:Idea's are Idea's that why there are ideas.

If I had some evidence it would be a theory, but using an idea as a reason to lynch someone, thats just wrong.

So what do you expect us to do for this first vote? Randomly pick someone?
Jump on whoever has the most votes?
Ideas are all we really have at the moment.
Ergo, we use them as well as we can.

**Lord-Loss**

Using them against people?

**Mekboy**

Lord-Loss wrote:Using them against people?

I.e:
Oh, I think that Lord of the Ghosts looks a little suspicious to me. I think he might be a genestealer, so I'll vote for him.

**Lord-Loss**

Thats an Idea.

Would you suspect someone if they use it as a reason to lynch you.

**Mekboy**

That all depends really, on whether it's a good reason. If I think that someone is simply making it up to try to pass the blame, then yes, I would.

**Thor665**

Lord-Loss wrote:Bullying is bad, your trying to force people to vote too quickly. While just four posts ago you asked people to slow down and think before voting

Look deeper into that one, you might just actually catch on to what I'm saying.

1. Yes, I believe people should get their votes out there on people they believe are "most suspicious" (only you and perhaps Manchu [though I don't recollect that particular accusation coming from him, I think he stuck with "bully"] are saying that I want "rush" votes). If we get our votes out in the open that gives us an idea as to what we're thinking and gives us evidence to perhaps sniff out where a traitor may or may not be based on who is voting for who and why.
2. Look way back at my first comment ((post)) when I came out openly with the statement that we should not rush to lynch.

These are not mutually exclusive concepts and I question the logic that had you consider them to be or to act like this is a strange flip from my standpoint of how voting should be handled. Quite frankly, in that regard, you are provably wrong.

(Even after some explained there votes with logic)

Whether or not someone explains their logic does not mean it's good logic. But by explaining their logic they will allow others to review the logic and try to sniff out the bad logic. Also, did I attack everyone who voted for lotg? I do not think I have - though I do question if he is our best option for a lynch at this point and have said as much. Even if most of you disagree with me about whether or not he's our best lynch, I don't see what is strange or unusual in me requesting that we reexamine the logic of what got us to that idea, to make sure it has a relatively sound basis prior to actually lynching him.

@lotg - by the by - DON'T SELF VOTE AND LYNCH YOURSELF. That will hurt our chances to find the traitors amongst us. If it comes to it that we should lynch you, its better to allow the rest of us to cast those votes so that the evidence will be cleaer later on as to who worked what lynches.

**Thor665**

((OOC, a quick fox for my point #2 above

I stand corrected - I thought I had posted my 'don't rush to lynch in my first post - clarly I should have double checked. You can find that information on page 2 my third post.))

**Lord-Loss**

Your manner, behaviour and actions all suggest a cunning Traitor.

Your good, I'l give you that but The Emperor Protects.

The way you speak, your crafty and always seem to be waiting for someone to slip up so you can jump on them.

**Thor665**

Lord-Loss wrote:Your manner, behaviour and actions all suggest a cunning Traitor.

Why and how?

Do you have any response to my responses to you?

**Lord-Loss**

Thor665 wrote:Whether or not someone explains their logic does not mean it's good logic.

Whether its good logic or not is not relevant. You asked for logic and they gave it and went on to vote for someone. They meet your requirment for how voting should be done, you 'bullied' people into voting how you wanted.

Thor665 wrote:If we get our votes out in the open that gives us an idea as to what we're thinking and gives us evidence to perhaps sniff out where a traitor may or may not

Or we could get discussion going and not rushing our votes.

**Thor665**

Lord-Loss wrote:
Thor665 wrote:Whether or not someone explains their logic does not mean it's good logic.

Whether its good logic or not is not relevant. You asked for logic and they gave it and went on to vote for someone. They meet your requirment for how voting should be done, you 'bullied' people into voting how you wanted.

Um...yes? So? I agreed that I was happy with those who used logic and then explained why I would attack bad logic. I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

Lord-Loss wrote:
Thor665 wrote:If we get our votes out in the open that gives us an idea as to what we're thinking and gives us evidence to perhaps sniff out where a traitor may or may not

Or we could get discussion going and not rushing our votes.

But how do we start discussion without putting out votes? I guess we could say - "I think you're the most suspicious" and not vote for someone, but then I would ask why do that, since it's the same as voting at that point. I already explianed why I thought your discussion starters at the beginning of the day ((game)) were fun but not helpful to actually find traitors.

((OOC - I have already explained the purpose of the Random Voting Stage in an earlier post - do you want me to restate why it's a good start? Also, we're not in the RVS anymore, so I question why you're attempting to use my belief in RVS as some sort of angle against me now. I also explained why asking back story info, while fun and interesting, would not be as functional as getting voting started. If you need me to re-explain the logic I will, Just ask.))

**Lord-Loss**

::Shrugs::

It gets discussion started and would eventually lead to voting.

**Thor665**

Lord-Loss wrote:It gets discussion started and would eventually lead to voting.

Perhaps - but I already outlined why I feel it's an inferior tactic. I have also outlined why I believe my tactic works.

If you're voting for me because of this standpoint I do feel it's intrinsic upon you to showcase why what I am advocating supports traitors and hurts Imperium. (you will note, even though I feel your story tactic is inferior, I never cited it as a reason to vote for you. That's because your tactic doesn't help or hinder traitors intrinsically. Therefore it's not a good tell one way or the other as to you being or not being a heretic. If you cannot define why my method is helpful to traiotrs and/or confuses the Imperium players then I submit it's not a valid reason to vote for me.)

Also, I still don't understand your first point from the above post and did ask you to clarify it for me - what did you mean? It still sounds vaguely like you're saying I "bullied" them into adding logic to their votes. I still say that I should be thanked for this effort as I believe it is obviously helpful to the pro Imperium people here to have logic used more, not less. If you disagree (or if I am misunderstanding your point, which I did ask you to clarify in my previous post) then you should be able to showcase why my "bullying" demands for logic will be helpful to traitors and/or harmful to Imperium players.

**Lord-Loss**

Its more the way you've bullied people into using your voting method.

Its very suspicous and you have been tryna pin one of us after another. First it was Sister Joan, now me.

I can only imagine the havoc you could wreck if your allowed to contuine.

(OOC:Where is everyone else? Its only me, Manchu, Thor, Mekboy, LoG and N0t_u who have said a word so far. When is 'Podding' going to take place?)

**Thor665**

Lord-Loss wrote:Its more the way you've bullied people into using your voting method.

But as far as I can tell you define my vote method as demanding reasons for votes and expression of who you think is most guilty without a rush to lynch. How do you define this as bad for Imperium and good for traitors?

If you don't think it's bad for Imperium and good for traitors why vote for me over it?

Lord-Loss wrote:Its very suspicous and you have been tryna pin one of us after another. First it was Sister Joan, now me.

Actually if you'll look I'm still voting for hot legs McGee over there. All I'm asking for you to do is to please explain the logic you have for voting me - and you seem to be having a hard time expressing it.

Guilty conscience?

Lord-Loss wrote:I can only imagine the havoc you could wreck if your allowed to contuine.

I agree, my slaughterhouse of requiring explanations and logic would continue - woe to the Imperium!

Lord-Loss wrote:(OOC:Where is everyone else? Its only me, Manchu, Thor, Mekboy, LoG and N0t_u who have said a word so far. When is 'Podding' going to take place?)

Rules Post wrote:1)A player will get prodded if they have been inactive for three days.

2)Weekends count as one day. (ie If your last post is on a Thursday you will not be prodded till the Monday following)

((OOC - You can also request a prod of any player (though Drk_O said he might be away for a few days))

**Orkeosaurus**

ORKEO HAVE NO IDEA WHO IS GENESTEALER. TOO MANY TALKINGS.

**Lord-Loss**

Thor665 wrote:Guilty conscience?

Your a sly old Fox, always countering what I say and bringing up new questions.

you don't think it's bad for Imperium and good for traitors why vote for me over it?

Its irrelevant if your system is effective or not. Whats important is that you can easily manipulate who the way people vote and you have been doing so.

my slaughterhouse of requiring explanations and logic would continue - woe to the Imperium!

See above.

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

**Arctik_Firangi**

Lord-Loss wrote:Its more the way you've bullied people into using your voting method.

Its very suspicous and you have been tryna pin one of us after another. First it was Sister Joan, now me.

I can only imagine the havoc you could wreck if your allowed to contuine.

(OOC:Where is everyone else? Its only me, Manchu, Thor, Mekboy, LoG and N0t_u who have said a word so far. When is 'Podding' going to take place?)

"It would certainly wreak havoc... if it turned out that you were guilty. However, since the majority of us are loyalists, it does not affect us so much for the time being. And for the record, it was you first, and then the Sister."

**Manchu**

I don't think Thor is going to see the point, L-L. I tried and tried to get him to think beyond his own viewpoint but, admirably enough in any other circumstance, his mind is like a fortress. There are two possibilities: He really can't see past his own nose or he's a lying traitor playing us for the logical one. Given the aggressive, desperate edge to his logic, however, I am obviously inclined to believe the latter.

**Manchu**

@Arctik: Yes, that's right, isn't it? You went after Lord-Loss for a little while and then started on me. How very opportunistic. You'll attack whoever gives you the chance, it seems.

**Arctik_Firangi**

Manchu wrote:I don't think Thor is going to see the point, L-L. I tried and tried to get him to think beyond his own viewpoint but, admirably enough in any other circumstance, his mind is like a fortress. There are two possibilities: He really can't see past his own nose or he's a lying traitor playing us for the logical one. Given the aggressive, desperate edge to his logic, however, I am obviously inclined to believe the latter.

:Firangi raises an eyebrow:

"I'm not going to pretend that I am fond of the Ecclesiarchy... I have seen this method in your cult's preachings before, so I do not presume you to be guilty because of it... but saying that a thing you believe is true and then claiming that another, with a different opinion, is the 'stubborn' one does not ring with consistency in my opinion."

further@manchu for ninja'd: "Were you addressing me with that comment, or Thor? I was pointing out earlier that Lord-Loss was incorrect in his recollection of the order in which Thor had accused him and you. I maintain that I have no strong reason to suspect you."

**Lord-Loss**

Wait, wait, when did Praising the Emperor become 'Cult preaching'?

Unless you do not Worship his holyness Arctik_Firangi?