The Syndicate

Oh, I forgot to mention yesterday, that Faust video is blocked in Canada. Good thing I'm well acquainted with it already.

On another note, I wonder how many nebulae there are.

Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

Kate wrote:

Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.

Vompatti wrote:

Kate wrote:

Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.

Well thanks for supplying him with an answer but I'd still like to hear from him. So, since this "information" is so secret how would you know about it? Seems you have a bit of secret information yourself.

Kate wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Kate wrote:

Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.

Well thanks for supplying him with an answer but I'd still like to hear from him. So, since this "information" is so secret how would you know about it? Seems you have a bit of secret information yourself.

I count 22 (twenty-two) instances of "(Secrets)" on the first page, that's how I know about it.

Vompatti wrote:

Kate wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Kate wrote:

Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.

Well thanks for supplying him with an answer but I'd still like to hear from him. So, since this "information" is so secret how would you know about it? Seems you have a bit of secret information yourself.

I count 22 (twenty-two) instances of "(Secrets)" on the first page, that's how I know about it.

So you know because there are secrets or you assume because there are secrets?

Kate wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Kate wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Kate wrote:
Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.

Well thanks for supplying him with an answer but I'd still like to hear from him. So, since this "information" is so secret how would you know about it? Seems you have a bit of secret information yourself.

I count 22 (twenty-two) instances of "(Secrets)" on the first page, that's how I know about it.

So you know because there are secrets or you assume because there are secrets?

I'm not sure.

^^lol, nice answer.

rabbit8 wrote:^^lol, nice answer.

Ditto.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'm not very good at a lot of these multiple sentence posts either. But then again, I've had times where I didn't follow Alex's challenges or forgot about them and he has some rather nasty punishments if you don't obey his challenges. Although since this is my second post, I figure I'm safe for now. Plus I need to go to bed anyway so I will make up the third one sometime tomorrow. Which is when I will also start looking more closely at the game thread and see what pops out as being suspicious.

I too am afraid disobey SockFaceMPAlex. I have heard lots of stories about his punishments though I have only witnessed several. Therefore, I will obey his order/challenge.

bea wrote:awesome post socky! I'm not sure what it all means, (I'm with the svs camp. I feel rereading in order ). I don't find the particular posting requirement all that harsh and it is a nice way to encourage discussion. While the prize thing on a day 0 poll is pretty traditional, it is possible that the portal vote was for storytelling. Wasn't the avant game where we had to decide where we were going during the day and svs and a bunch of others got frozen out in the snow while we were trying to build shelter and hunt and stuffs? Anyway - I could see some similar mechanic being used here as well.

Not sure who i find suspicious just yet, but wabbit was funny earlier. (Srrsly, I LOLed in the car and Diggz was all "What?" and I was all "Wabbit cracks me up." and then he scowled for a minute. Good times.)

The Avant 1 game being the only other mafia game I have played, I remember it very well and also see similarities.
If I may speculate: There are 3 baddie teams and there were 3 choices in the opening post. Avant 1 was 5 for 5 also with each choice benefiting one particular team. I did not suspect this similarity until I saw that Nebulo 9 was waiting for us on the other side of the portal, my vote being to stay away from extreme heat and extreme cold. I suspect that the supposed Pluto portal was to benefit the Residents (The ice world in Avant 1 benefitted them as well). I now suspect that the portal with massive brain planet on the other side is to benefit the Ziltoidians. This leaves the sun to benefit Herman and the Mysterious Voice. Whether or not the teams knew this as they were voting, I have no idea.

That being said I still have no idea who to vote for!

Vompatti wrote:

Kate wrote:

Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.

This does strike me as very odd, against the self-preservation that this game is theoretically all about. Alternatively, it could be a masterful bit of paranoia induction: he must have a secret power that gets activated by votes, so don't vote for him! Layers upon layers, am I right?

Boomslang wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Kate wrote:

Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.

This does strike me as very odd, against the self-preservation that this game is theoretically all about. Alternatively, it could be a masterful bit of paranoia induction: he must have a secret power that gets activated by votes, so don't vote for him! Layers upon layers, am I right?

I agree fullheartedly. It is possible that he will benefit from the votes he gains as a result of this. That, or he has a one time immunity or full time lynch protection. Anything is possible when Socky is hosting.

Boomslang wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Kate wrote:

Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.

This does strike me as very odd, against the self-preservation that this game is theoretically all about. Alternatively, it could be a masterful bit of paranoia induction: he must have a secret power that gets activated by votes, so don't vote for him! Layers upon layers, am I right?

No, you're not right.

rabbit8 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Kate wrote:

Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.

This does strike me as very odd, against the self-preservation that this game is theoretically all about. Alternatively, it could be a masterful bit of paranoia induction: he must have a secret power that gets activated by votes, so don't vote for him! Layers upon layers, am I right?

No, you're not right.

I don't think so either. All this backing up is seeming more like layers upon layers than the supposed secrets you all seem to know so much about.

Great post again MP. I've been reading the thread closely, trying to find anything that sticks out as suspicious to me. As of right now I am not having very much luck. We've still got plenty of time, so hopefully something strikes me soon.

Going to read up, will have a post with my thoughts following this one.

His vote could be controlled maybe. I'm not sure. :o Either way it's an odd move.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:His vote could be controlled maybe. I'm not sure. :o Either way it's an odd move.

I doubt his vote could be controlled on day one.

Thoughts:


INH's quickness to finish the task and finish it first (sloppily I might add) pings me something fierce. I am reminded of a game we played together where there was a similar posting "contest" (wouldn't call this a contest, just an incentive to talk). He REALLY tried hard to win it, breaking the actual rules of the contest in the process (he posted some off topic nonsense to boost his post count). At the time, I was doing pretty well in the contest as well and I was pretty much a confirmed civvie. His trying so hard to beat me set off bells all over the place and it turns out he was Doc Ock (Baddie).

So, that's where I'm at with INH. It wasn't a contest, it was just an incentive to post 3 times with 3 sentences over 48 hours. Him rushing to complete it and completely ignoring the three sentence rule for some of his posts makes me look in his direction.


Vompatti caught onto this just as I did, and rabbit claimed that it wasn't all that suspicious. For rabbit not to realize that something as odd as what INH did might not even be the slightest bit pingy also pings me. Rabbit dismissed it outright, which I don't think is fair, especially on Day 1. Rabbit also called out Epignosis for not posting alongside his poll vote. He called it a "baddie move". Now, I dunno Epignosis but lets compare:

Rushing to complete an ambiguous challenge, ignoring the rules of the challenge, and bending the rules of the challenge - Not remotely suspect.

Voting in a Day 0 poll without posting - Baddie move.


Bit of a leap.

ADDED: Seems rabbit was just "messing" With Epignosis. But LT apparently wasn't when she agreed that it might look like a baddie move. Dunno, maybe I'm missing something. Oh now SVS is explaining the "Drive-By" thing. I dunno if "Drive-By" voting applies to a Day 0 poll. I mean really, my reason for voting the Sun was nonsense, so it wouldn't have mattered if I posted it or not.


Also, Leech's voting for him/herself and refusing to post more than 3 posts on topic pinged me. Might be an excuse to scrape the bare minimum and then fall into the shadows. Nobody would expect a baddie McBadderson to vote for themselves day 1...

And it seems theres quite a bit of discussion about secrets, alot of back and forth and again rabbit is kicking the cages.

My head is thinking a vote for INH or rabbit. Granted, I know both of them more than I know half of the folks playing, so Might be I am biased a bit.

DharmaHelper wrote:Thoughts:


INH's quickness to finish the task and finish it first (sloppily I might add) pings me something fierce. I am reminded of a game we played together where there was a similar posting "contest" (wouldn't call this a contest, just an incentive to talk). He REALLY tried hard to win it, breaking the actual rules of the contest in the process (he posted some off topic nonsense to boost his post count). At the time, I was doing pretty well in the contest as well and I was pretty much a confirmed civvie. His trying so hard to beat me set off bells all over the place and it turns out he was Doc Ock (Baddie).

So, that's where I'm at with INH. It wasn't a contest, it was just an incentive to post 3 times with 3 sentences over 48 hours. Him rushing to complete it and completely ignoring the three sentence rule for some of his posts makes me look in his direction.


Vompatti caught onto this just as I did, and rabbit claimed that it wasn't all that suspicious. For rabbit not to realize that something as odd as what INH did might not even be the slightest bit pingy also pings me. Rabbit dismissed it outright, which I don't think is fair, especially on Day 1. Rabbit also called out Epignosis for not posting alongside his poll vote. He called it a "baddie move". Now, I dunno Epignosis but lets compare:

Rushing to complete an ambiguous challenge, ignoring the rules of the challenge, and bending the rules of the challenge - Not remotely suspect.

Voting in a Day 0 poll without posting - Baddie move.


Bit of a leap.

ADDED: Seems rabbit was just "messing" With Epignosis. But LT apparently wasn't when she agreed that it might look like a baddie move. Dunno, maybe I'm missing something. Oh now SVS is explaining the "Drive-By" thing. I dunno if "Drive-By" voting applies to a Day 0 poll. I mean really, my reason for voting the Sun was nonsense, so it wouldn't have mattered if I posted it or not.


Also, Leech's voting for him/herself and refusing to post more than 3 posts on topic pinged me. Might be an excuse to scrape the bare minimum and then fall into the shadows. Nobody would expect a baddie McBadderson to vote for themselves day 1...

And it seems theres quite a bit of discussion about secrets, alot of back and forth and again rabbit is kicking the cages.

My head is thinking a vote for INH or rabbit. Granted, I know both of them more than I know half of the folks playing, so Might be I am biased a bit.

Why are you only considering INH and Rabbit and not Leech? You seemed to think that, and posed that in fact, he may have made a huge Baddie McBadderson move. Why address it but not add him to your possibilities list?

What INH did was not pniy, at all/

pingy.

Kate wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Thoughts:


INH's quickness to finish the task and finish it first (sloppily I might add) pings me something fierce. I am reminded of a game we played together where there was a similar posting "contest" (wouldn't call this a contest, just an incentive to talk). He REALLY tried hard to win it, breaking the actual rules of the contest in the process (he posted some off topic nonsense to boost his post count). At the time, I was doing pretty well in the contest as well and I was pretty much a confirmed civvie. His trying so hard to beat me set off bells all over the place and it turns out he was Doc Ock (Baddie).

So, that's where I'm at with INH. It wasn't a contest, it was just an incentive to post 3 times with 3 sentences over 48 hours. Him rushing to complete it and completely ignoring the three sentence rule for some of his posts makes me look in his direction.


Vompatti caught onto this just as I did, and rabbit claimed that it wasn't all that suspicious. For rabbit not to realize that something as odd as what INH did might not even be the slightest bit pingy also pings me. Rabbit dismissed it outright, which I don't think is fair, especially on Day 1. Rabbit also called out Epignosis for not posting alongside his poll vote. He called it a "baddie move". Now, I dunno Epignosis but lets compare:

Rushing to complete an ambiguous challenge, ignoring the rules of the challenge, and bending the rules of the challenge - Not remotely suspect.

Voting in a Day 0 poll without posting - Baddie move.


Bit of a leap.

ADDED: Seems rabbit was just "messing" With Epignosis. But LT apparently wasn't when she agreed that it might look like a baddie move. Dunno, maybe I'm missing something. Oh now SVS is explaining the "Drive-By" thing. I dunno if "Drive-By" voting applies to a Day 0 poll. I mean really, my reason for voting the Sun was nonsense, so it wouldn't have mattered if I posted it or not.


Also, Leech's voting for him/herself and refusing to post more than 3 posts on topic pinged me. Might be an excuse to scrape the bare minimum and then fall into the shadows. Nobody would expect a baddie McBadderson to vote for themselves day 1...

And it seems theres quite a bit of discussion about secrets, alot of back and forth and again rabbit is kicking the cages.

My head is thinking a vote for INH or rabbit. Granted, I know both of them more than I know half of the folks playing, so Might be I am biased a bit.

Why are you only considering INH and Rabbit and not Leech? You seemed to think that, and posed that in fact, he may have made a huge Baddie McBadderson move. Why address it but not add him to your possibilities list?

Because I read the bit where you guys were discussing "Maybe he gets more powers the more people vote for him." And I don't fancy giving out powers to people.

^^lol, OK.

Given the amount of secrets and the shadiness of voting for himself I don't feel comfortable voting Leech at the minute. I don't disagree that an eye should be kept on him, however.

What do you think about Leech, Rabbit?


Lol just kidding you're probably just going to post "lol k" again :P

lol, OK.

Yeah, thats what I always do. You got me.
Or...................

I have not played with him very much if at all and don't really remember him. But I've known a few players who vote for themselves every day 1. He could be one. I don't know at this point he has posted very little to go on. A player voting forthemselves day 1 means nothing to me.

Day 2 he does it again, then we have a problem.

DharmaHelper wrote:Given the amount of secrets and the shadiness of voting for himself I don't feel comfortable voting Leech at the minute. I don't disagree that an eye should be kept on him, however.

What do you think about Leech, Rabbit?


Lol just kidding you're probably just going to post "lol k" again :P

Why would you give so much credence to other posters to answered for him, and then suggested that a secret may or may not be that he gets power from votes? Sounds more like Leech wanted to vote and get out of there. When he got called on it, others not so subtly jumped in to defend it and came up with a "oh yea, must be a super secret secret theory." I call balloney on this one, DH. (the theory, not your not buying it that is...)

Kate wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Given the amount of secrets and the shadiness of voting for himself I don't feel comfortable voting Leech at the minute. I don't disagree that an eye should be kept on him, however.

What do you think about Leech, Rabbit?


Lol just kidding you're probably just going to post "lol k" again :P

Why would you give so much credence to other posters to answered for him, and then suggested that a secret may or may not be that he gets power from votes? Sounds more like Leech wanted to vote and get out of there. When he got called on it, others not so subtly jumped in to defend it and came up with a "oh yea, must be a super secret secret theory." I call balloney on this one, DH. (the theory, not your not buying it that is...)

Or, alterior motives are in play here......

I count at least one baddie that has a secret that might explain Leech's voting for himself with no sweat.

rabbit8 wrote:lol, OK.

Yeah, thats what I always do. You got me.
Or...................

I have not played with him very much if at all and don't really remember him. But I've known a few players who vote for themselves every day 1. He could be one. I don't know at this point he has posted very little to go on. A player voting forthemselves day 1 means nothing to me.

Day 2 he does it again, then we have a problem.

Rab, I wouldn't have thought too much of it either - other than it being a poor move if he is in fact a civvie - until a few other players jumped in to defend it with a somewhat wild theory that they seem to claim they "know" as opposed to "think" it.

DharmaHelper wrote:I count at least one baddie that has a secret that might explain Leech's voting for himself with no sweat.

So then, why dismiss his self vote?

I didn't dismiss it at all.

I think the most suspect thing so far is Vompatti trying to explain away Leech's self vote. Giving him an excuse, talking about secrets as if he knows why Leech voted himself. Just seems odd that he would jump to his defense so quickly. Also, the "defense" dissuades anyone from actually voting Leech (and it seems to have been effective).

DH - there are quite a few new players in this game, so why is sharing knowledge of how the game is played for their benefit worthy of being "notable"?

DharmaHelper wrote:I didn't dismiss it at all.

I guess dismiss was too strong a word.

I guess my point is that if the thought is that he was forced to self vote by a baddie team, how would that happen since its only day one?

LittleTiger wrote:I think the most suspect thing so far is Vompatti trying to explain away Leech's self vote. Giving him an excuse, talking about secrets as if he knows why Leech voted himself. Just seems odd that he would jump to his defense so quickly. Also, the "defense" dissuades anyone from actually voting Leech (and it seems to have been effective).

DH - there are quite a few new players in this game, so why is sharing knowledge of how the game is played for their benefit worthy of being "notable"?

EXACTLY!

Kate - I think you think I disagree with you, which is not the case. I'm just hesitant to vote for people who vote for themselves, particularly this early. I'd like to be cautious is all.


LittleTiger - I don't think it's wrong to want to help people who are new. I just think finding people who are new to be suspect for "drive by voting" during a day 0 poll is a little off.

DharmaHelper wrote:Kate - I think you think I disagree with you, which is not the case. I'm just hesitant to vote for people who vote for themselves, particularly this early. I'd like to be cautious is all.

LittleTiger - I don't think it's wrong to want to help people who are new. I just think finding people who are new to be suspect for "drive by voting" during a day 0 poll is a little off.

I agree with you on both these points.

DharmaHelper wrote:Kate - I think you think I disagree with you, which is not the case. I'm just hesitant to vote for people who vote for themselves, particularly this early. I'd like to be cautious is all.


LittleTiger - I don't think it's wrong to want to help people who are new. I just think finding people who are new to be suspect for "drive by voting" during a day 0 poll is a little off.

LOL, I can't tell if we agree or not, but I don't think we are too far off!

Kate wrote:

LittleTiger wrote:I think the most suspect thing so far is Vompatti trying to explain away Leech's self vote. Giving him an excuse, talking about secrets as if he knows why Leech voted himself. Just seems odd that he would jump to his defense so quickly. Also, the "defense" dissuades anyone from actually voting Leech (and it seems to have been effective).

DH - there are quite a few new players in this game, so why is sharing knowledge of how the game is played for their benefit worthy of being "notable"?

EXACTLY!

Last post on this, at least for now, cuz I gotta go but I just wanted to repost this post by LT. The reactions to the self vote were what made the self vote more suspish (in conjunction with voting himself in the first place).

DharmaHelper wrote:Kate - I think you think I disagree with you, which is not the case. I'm just hesitant to vote for people who vote for themselves, particularly this early. I'd like to be cautious is all.


LittleTiger - I don't think it's wrong to want to help people who are new. I just think finding people who are new to be suspect for "drive by voting" during a day 0 poll is a little off.

I didn't suspect anyone for "drive by voting"? What are you on about?

LittleTiger wrote:I think the most suspect thing so far is Vompatti trying to explain away Leech's self vote. Giving him an excuse, talking about secrets as if he knows why Leech voted himself. Just seems odd that he would jump to his defense so quickly. Also, the "defense" dissuades anyone from actually voting Leech (and it seems to have been effective).

DH - there are quite a few new players in this game, so why is sharing knowledge of how the game is played for their benefit worthy of being "notable"?

I think Vompatti likes to make observations regarding possibilities. Frankly, I would have done the same thing had I not been at work. Consider these possibilities:

1. Voting for himself gives Leech a benefit.
2. Us voting for Leech gives him a benefit or harms us.
3. Leech getting lynched gives him a benefit (or harms those that voted for him).
4. Leech voting for himself is suspicious, but (according to others), someone explaining the possible rationale behind that vote is even more suspicious, making Leech free and clear.
5. Or Leech is, to borrow a phrase from the rabbit, "Just fucking with [us]."

I think it is odd that everyone is putting so much stock in the "gaining power from votes" thing. That was an idea thrown out there, and now everyone seems to think it's probable. It seems to me that if Vompatti is defending a teammate in Leech, and Leech does have a secret power from votes, his teammates wouldn't want to throw that info out into the thread; on the other hand, if Leech was just a civvie getting a random Day 1 vote out of the way, then the speculation that he gains power from votes is just that, a speculation.

As of right now these are my top 3 suspicions after reading back, in no particular order:

First off is Boomslang. His wanting to focus on the Earth portal voters doesn't make any sense to me. I can't remember if I mentioned this last night or not (I was really tired when I was posting) but I don't see what the point is of putting so much focus into a Day 0 vote when we've only gotten to Day 1 so far. Later on in the game it might mean something, but right now it just feels like grasping at straws.

Second is Leech. I don't like the way he voted for himself and then just left before the discussion over that started. I know some people will vote for themselves on Day 1 because they aren't sure which way the wind is blowing yet. I've done it a few times myself so I can relate. But I always responded to questions about it and tried to justify myself, regardless of if the justification was good or not. And yes, I've done it as both a civvie and a baddie. And regardless of the supposed "secrets" he could have, that alone won't keep me from voting for him.

Lastly is INH. I remember the posting challenge in Spider-Man that DH brought up, and that one reeked of something fishy. The way he completed it so quickly and didn't really post anything of substance (even though it was technically on-topic) strikes me as not being genuine.

I would like to hear more from these 3 people justifying their actions. Because whichever one gives the worst defense is probably the one I will vote for, as right now I would be equally comfortable with voting for any of these 3.

See, THIS is how you end a posting challenge! :P

Okay I got spanked by the embedded quote thing so I had to separate them.

Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

Really? We need some suspicious and eye smileys please!

Okay since I dont know this person at all, people who do... Is he being facetious for humor or did my suspishometer ding for a reason?? Self votes always ping me.

Kate wrote:
Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

Vompatti wrote:There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.

Kate wrote:Well thanks for supplying him with an answer but I'd still like to hear from him. So, since this "information" is so secret how would you know about it? Seems you have a bit of secret information yourself.

So you know because there are secrets or you assume because there are secrets?

Vompatti wrote:I'm not sure.

Excuse me? You toss out a theory and then this is what you've got for me jeeves?

I need Seal's eye suit!

DharmaHelper wrote:I count at least one baddie that has a secret that might explain Leech's voting for himself with no sweat.

Wait.. What? I think I need more coffee, because if you read this sentence one way it means you know of a baddie secret, which in fact, makes you a baddie. If you read it another way, it means you can count. Add this to the "no! Jesu Forfend! Dont look at Leech" group that you seem to be joining and now I am looking at you DH.

Kate wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I didn't dismiss it at all.

I guess dismiss was too strong a word.

I guess my point is that if the thought is that he was forced to self vote by a baddie team, how would that happen since its only day one?

^^That.

The good news is we have a decent list of suspects on Day One! The bad news is I have barely played with any of them. I know Vomp and DH and I have shared a game... possibly two but it was many moons ago. If I had to vote right now it would be either Leech or Vomp. That exchanged didnt feel right and now it looks like the Damage Control Unit has come in to fix the mistake.

*linkits*

Boomslang caught my eye early but then I got swept up into this conversation, so I will go back and re read.

Also, has Aces posted yet? I don't remember anything that they posted yet?

Illy, The non-secret portion of one of the roles leads me to believe that the secret portion of that role might have something to do with why Leech doesn't have a problem voting for himself.


LT - I was talking about rabbit's comment :/

Kate wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:His vote could be controlled maybe. I'm not sure. :o Either way it's an odd move.

I doubt his vote could be controlled on day one.

Woops. Forgot there hasn't been a night yet. Silly me. XP

DH, thank you for clarifying. I am still watching you though.

Also the person who posted in poetry, is that what they usually do? Again I do not know them, so I dont know to assume it is a posting challenge or break the poetry down?