Verbose Mafia 2 - Post or Perish (Game Over)

[Mr. Grey]

Nomination Count:

Kelly Chen: 3 (Cogito Ergo Sum, Fritzler, SpamWise)
Cogito Ergo Sum: 2 (Kelly Chen, VitaminR)
Commodore Amazing: 2 (Fritzler, Kelly Chen)
Fritzler: 2 (Kelly Chen, mathcam)

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

Yes Adele, it's possible for us to just nominate 3 people each and designate a system so that every player receives the same number of nominations and is thus placed on the lynching block. For example we could go with the player list and make a system so that every player nominates the 3 people before him on the list.

However if we were going to place everyone at risk for a lynch, we might as well just nominate the one person we're planning to vote for and then proceed to vote for them later given no new developments. It would give us more time during the day to figure out where people are going to be voting and what not.

I think we'll be fine if we just play by the rules hun if we get an accurate idea of where everyone is leaning and we make sure that people are using the same amount of nominations each.

[Thok]

Our current predicament strikes me as similar (although not identical) to that of a certain American television show called "Lost". I may be wrong, for I have not seen said show, and only know of it by its reputation. If I am correct, perhaps we could go hunting for a polar bear as on that show; would you be interested Fritzler?

I feel that Kelly Chan's attempt to coddle up to me is suspicious. Why would a religious person such as her request to see my naked back? Her mental abilities also worry me.

Possibly we should consider having a large quantity of people with 2 nominations, so as to give us the potnetial for multiple candidates for lynching. However, such a quantity of candidates may prevent us from being able to make decision.

Finally, I am worried about our current lack of rations. While I do not require constant supplies of roast hare and fine brie, I also prefer to avoid starvation. I hope we do not have to resort to consuming the corpse of Rasputin.

Nominate Kelly Chen

[Fiasco]

Fiasco, now with a slightly better idea of what to expect but still a bit overwhelmed by recent events, mumbles something about Ra, Ra, Ra, Egypt's Sunniest... Submarine? He then begins to involve himself in the discussion.

Adele argues that we should not judge one another on any eccentricities of speech we are displaying, on account of these eccentricities having been imposed, by force, on behalf of some outside entity. I am unwilling to go along with this line of reasoning. Who is to say that a similar entity has not distorted the values and allegiances of some among us, and moreover, placed these distortions in some correspondence with the aforementioned eccentricities? Such a correspondence may be subtle and twisted, but it is unlikely to be wholly absent.

She suggests, furthermore, that all of us spend our votes in such a way as to give each person three nominations. For example, everyone could nominate the two people preceding and the one person following him or her in the alphabet. Under such a scheme I, for example, would nominate Commodore Amazing, Dripping Goofball and Fritzler. I assume that she intends everyone to change their nominations after doing so; to do otherwise defeats the point of this part of the day, and moreover, makes it unlikely that we will be able to reach a majority in time.

Even then, I am not sure I see what this would accomplish (though it would also do no harm). Perhaps Adele can explain. It is true that, if only the guilty among us use all their nominations, those nominated will be more likely to be innocent. But in my view, the solution to this is not to start by spreading nominations equally; then, it is still true that if the guilty change their votes more often from the initial arrangement, they will have more influence. The solution is for everyone to make honest attempts to determine who are the villains here, and nominate them. If there are no clues, nominate people anyway, temporarily; as Pooky has indicated, there are no adverse consequences to nominating and then unnominating.

At this point I might as well go with the little list mentioned above, except that I will leave Commodore Amazing alone, as some here seem to bear a grudge against him already. Instead, I will nominate Adele. Rest assured, though, that I will probably change my mind in the future.

Nominate: Adele, DrippingGoofball, Fritzler

[Commodore Amazing]

I know we are already disturbed by Thok's ideas of resorting to cannibalism. I know we want to root out the killers among us. Before we get too much into the violence, I would like to request everyone audition for my next play. Please follow the directions as much as you can. I promise there's a point to this.

I would like Adele and Cogito Ergo Sum to recite the following lines:

"I am gone forever." Exit, pursued by Commodore Amazing.
"Commodore Amazing prevents a bad marriage."

I would like DrippingGoofball and Fiasco to recite:

"I am gone forever." Exit, pursued by Commodore Amazing.
"Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Commodore Amazing!"

I would like Fritzler and Kelly Chen to recite:

"I am gone forever." Exit, pursued by Commodore Amazing.
"More Commodore Amazing, with less art."

I would like LoudmouthLee and mathcam to recite:

"Commodore Amazing prevents a bad marriage."
"Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Commodore Amazing!"

I would like mikeburnfire and petroleumjelly to recite:

"Commodore Amazing prevents a bad marriage."
"More Commodore Amazing, with less art."

I would like PookyTheMagicalBear and Seol to recite:

"Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Commodore Amazing!"
"More Commodore Amazing, with less art."

I would like SpamWise and Tamuz to recite:

"I am gone forever." Exit, pursued by Commodore Amazing.
"Commodore Amazing prevents a bad marriage."
"Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Commodore Amazing!"

I would like the silent speaker and Thok to recite:

"I am gone forever." Exit, pursued by Commodore Amazing.
"Commodore Amazing prevents a bad marriage."
"More Commodore Amazing, with less art."

I would like Turbovolver and VitaminR to recite:

"I am gone forever." Exit, pursued by Commodore Amazing.
"Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Commodore Amazing!"
"More Commodore Amazing, with less art."

And I would like Werebear to recite:

"Commodore Amazing prevents a bad marriage."
"Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Commodore Amazing!"
"More Commodore Amazing, with less art."

Thanks.

Fiasco, I appreciate your aversion to nominating me. It won't go unnoticed. I will withhold my nominations for the time being.

[LoudmouthLee]

What a perplexing situation. I was thinking about the ghastly reporcussions of incorrect nominations. However, due to Pooky's rather apropos thought as said before, I believe that concentrating our nominations in a certain number of people would be most beneficial.

We have had quite a few rulebreakers in the early going. My friends, we must be much more careful, otherwise, we will absolutely be in for a horrid game.

My nomination will actually, in a slightly contradictory manner, go to someone who broke a rule, but I would assume would be incredibly careful in regards to not breaking rules.

Nominate: MikeBurnFire

His recent outburst makes me think he's not only hostile, but somehat insipid in his blaming of others. He needs to accept the personal responsibility of being able to handle his own restriction.

[Commodore Amazing]

I have just realized that it might be a better idea to wait on the auditions until tomorrow. I'd like everyone to refrain from getting too excited about my audition requests.

As far as who to nominate, I think the LoudmouthLee fellow has a reasonably decent point about the hostility of mikeburnfire. I will

nominate: mikeburnfire

. And I'm ignoring Fritzler, obviously. How do you like that, Fritlzer?

[Fritzler]

"I am gone forever." I then exit and CA approves me. Anyways, Im happy killingany one of the below three people. I'm still kind of drunk too.

Fritz takes another shot

I appreciate all of your concern though. Now CA, DIE!

Thanks.

Nominate: Commodore Amazing, Kelly Chen, MikeBurnFire

[mikeburnfire]

Surely as a man of the world, LML, you know that religion is a touchy subject, no matter where it is involved.
Hosility on both the relgious and the secular is not uncommon.
Why do you ignore the obvious facts to cast suspicion on me?
Are you trying to get me killed because you know how enjoyable my jagged wit is?
Or perhaps it is my insightful intuition from previous situations similar to this one that scares you?

I'll have you know that I, as well as several others here (perhaps even yourself), have more than one restriction. Sometimes it's the simplest ones that are overlooked, as was the case with me. Nevertheless, I have accepted my punishment from our host.

Aside from the topic of religion, I have other reasons for being hostile.

Like the fact that our already unwelcome trip involved a plane crash and a German prophet being murdered in front of us...
in.
case.
you.
forgot.

If anything, you should all be more hostile. Your calm demeanor is damning, and Commodore and Fritzler's sheep-like nominations have been duly noted in my mind.

[LoudmouthLee]

Boo Hoo. I will do my best and try not to cry in the case of you, MikeBurnFire.

What I find to be the most perplexing, dear sir, is that you ultimately find it better to pepper everyone with accusations instead of understanding why suspicions have been cast upon you.

Conversations about religion, in general, is one of the forbidden dinner time conversations. It does seem, however, that many fellow travellers have a vested interest in religion. Why do you feel a unrequited need to silence them? Instead, I believe that if we foster conversations of this sort, we will be able to generate better ideas.

I see no reason to even contemplate silencing anyone about any single topic right now. I do hope you reevaluate your initial thoughts.

[Turbovolver]

I apologise, Mr. Grey. I had just arrived at the party, I was not yet accustomed to the strange way you force my speech. I will do my best to ensure that it does not happen again.

My first thought was that those who suggested we nominate MikeBurnFire just because he was angry were more likely to be our murderers. With all of the masks and rules enforced on us by Mr. Grey, we have to judge people by intention and little else.

As I thought more deeply about the matter, I concluded that such aggression was hardly worth talking about. The fact that LoudmouthLee explains in such detail why such common behaviour is worthy of a vote makes me suspicious. As does MikeBurnFire trying and failing to explain such an insignificant event.

Nominate: LoudmouthLee, MikeBurnFire

I would also like to nominate Mathcam, for reasons I do not want to share.

Nominate: Mathcam

I think more should follow my example.

[Kelly Chen]

Is your back naked or something, Thok? It's more challenging to draw through a shirt.

Buy my car or burn, sayeth Moses to the Egyptians! Proof of insurance is in the glove compartment.

Sadly, this Tourette's thing is kind of attached to me. Hopefully I can at least get vigged rather than lynched.

Unnominate: Cogito Ergo Sum
Nominate: mikeburnfire

Yeah! Let's nominate other people besides me!

[mikeburnfire]

Nobody said you had to shed any tears for me, Lee. Any crying done by you is for reasons unknown to me.

'Understanding why suspicions are cast upon me'? I already understood the reasons and felt that they weren't worth mentioning. But since you insist,

1) I broke a rule and now I have ten~or~so nominations. Fritz and Turbovolver broke rules as well, so what's your point?

2) I don't want to talk about religion. Big deal. I also don't want to talk about abortions, politics, and that nasty growth on your hindquarters. All of which are subjects that make me uneasy and I would rather not talk about it, but I'm being forced to talk, so you'll have to forgive me for wanting to change the subject.

FOS: LML for pushing to get me lyched for no reason,

Bigger FOS: Commodore, Fritzler and Turbovolver for jumping at the drop of a hat. But worst of all,

Nominate: Kelly Chen.

Here I am trying to respect your beliefs (which are vaguely simliar to mine) and attempting to persuate everyone else to stop bashing you, and you try to put my head on the chopping block.

[Kelly Chen]

mikeburnfire, how are you attempting to stop people from bashing me? How are you trying to respect my beliefs (i.e., Tourette's)? You said you were going to nominate me. I must have missed something?

It is wrong to mutilate someone's nose in their sleep. Expect to explode in the fires of hell if you try it! Amen.

[mikeburnfire]

I am *trying* to get people to stop talking about religion altogether, so you will not chastize those less holier than thou and so others will not criticize you for clashing with their own beliefs. I'm *trying* to let everybody think and believe what they want silently without invalidating, offending, or inciting anybody else. But if your belief is that I'm worthy of a nomination or even a lynch because of it (Ala LML), then I will retract my statement and will be pegging you as the stereotypical type of Christian who blindly follows the loudest voice.

So can we please drop the subject? I could get into a really heated debate on this issue, but I don't want to and never have.

[mathcam]

My goodness! Having realized my own error, I've now seen it many-fold times over in the words of others! Let us be more careful.

It it preposterous to argue that we should not judge one another based on "eccentricities of speech." For that matter, it is preposterous to think that there is anything at all which we should deliberately preclude ourselves from considering. I share all concerns, of course, about coming too quickly to any

conclusions

based on such deliberations, but vehemently protest that this should not prohibit us from considering them. It is hard to say what sorts of eccentricities might occur in the speeches of those intent on killing the lot of us, or even if there

are

such commonalities between them, but we must remain ever vigilant for such occurences.

[mathcam]

Further, in regards to the nominations, I do believe much of what has thus far been said has been rather incorrect. While such considerations are worth bringing to the forefront, keep in mind that the killers among us must do their best to "blend in", as it were. If the vast majority of us were to only expend one of our three nominations, perhaps by universal agreement, and there remained others who refused to defer to such a request, they would immediately bring themselves under intense scrutiny. Perhaps this point is worth considering further: What if we all agreed to only use one of our three nominations? Though somewhat limiting, admittedly, it presents ample opportunities for the killers to make mistakes by aligning themselves, or pointedly

not

aligning themselves, with each other. Such relations may prove crucial later on.

[mathcam]

Bother -- My apologies for my rude bursts of speech. I must concur, however, with the opinion of mikeburnfire, that we drop all irrelevant conversations immediately. It does naught but confuse, and distract from, the main issues of discussion. Let us leave what was said at the reception back at the reception. There will be ample time for such discussion once we get off of this damned island.

[SpamWise]

The point of agreeing to a a common number of nominations was simply so that the ratio of nominations by town/scum was in the town's favour. I believe that having everyone use all of their nominations would put the killers at a severe disadvantage. Judging from the actions of those on the plane, I would assume that there is at least one group looking to kill us all, maybe more. By using all our nominations, we ensure that we are not manipulated by the killers. As the one with the "Pooky" mask said before, the killers likely have enough numbers to tilt the nominations towards the innocent.

I could hazard a guess as to what your reasons are Turbovolver, but I shall hold back for now.

Nominate: Mathcam

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

By follow your example do you mean nominate random people for undisclosed reasoning, nominating Lee/Mike for the behaviour displayed or just basically coming out with their suspicions and nominating whoever we find suspicious?
Turbovolver please make it clear what you are refering to.

I believe that there are restrictions in place to generate this sort of discussion on religion, possibly some that force players to speak of it and some that force players to criticize those who speak of it. If we allow ourselves to be guided by such restrictions in our day, we could easily find that this will end in a situation not of our liking. I don't like where this path of designed discussion is leading us and I agree with Adele on the idea that we shouldn't allow these pregenerated post restrictions create all of the conflict that's going to happen in the game. There's no reason to totally ignore such speech impediments, but to allow them to dominate our day's proceedings could leave us chasing our own tail so to speak for quite a long time.

I suspect the game's set up to with restrictions to throw us off and it'd be easier for us if we could see through that smoke.

[DrippingGoofball]

Please accept my sincerest and most grovelling apologies for my egregious negligence to carry out the most basic requirements of my persona during the pre-game phase.

Mmm... I don't know who I should nominate at this point, as I cannot find reasons to nominate anyone at all. Nonetheless, I shall be bold and will select three unfornate soul-less bodies to jeopardize. It should be noted that these nominations are but lines in the sand, and they will shift with the ebbs and tides. And yet I think of past and current events, stories I make up in my own mind where people hide inside people like Russian dolls with their eyes painted shut. This whole crash business makes me dizzy, I feel I am about to faint... not... feeling... well... but must keep writing, talking, muttering and uttering... Is anyone listening?

Nominate: CES, mikeburnfire, Adele

[Turbovolver]

I do not think you are following what I am saying, MikeBurnFire. I did not nominate you for the same reasons as some of the others, I nominated you because you sought to defend actions which were in my opinion insignificant, instead of just brushing them off.

Pooky, my comment about following my example was merely an afterthought. Think nothing of it, though I do request you consider my opinions.

I must say that for the moment I like Mathcam's idea of each of us only nominating one person. I will not do so until many more people have agreed that this is the way forward, however.

I also agree that the irrelevant conversations must be curbed. Believe me, I can guarantee that we do not function at our best when we operate under our prejudices.

[VitaminR]

I concur that one nomination for every person would be useful. I should think that would be enough to nominate the most suspicious people. Sure, we can use all of them, but in all probability that means either a large group of players is disregarded in the lynch phase or we have so many candidates that is hard to get anything going.

Anyway, why has everyone skipped me? I just need a little attention. Just one nomination, please.

PLEASE!

[petroleumjelly]

Wringing her hands in consternation, PetroleumJelly watched as the accusations, nominations, and abominations flew about. She added her opinion to the bickering voices.

"I would imagine it is best to use what tools we have been given: we are allowed to nominate three people, as I understand it, and that is what we ought to do. Also, our characters are quite important: how else shall we know where our allegiance lies?"

PJ quickly turned to VitaminR. "Why VitaminR, my ickle sweetling, why ever would you want to be nominated for lynching in order to garner attention?"

With a wry twisting of the lips, PJ

Nominates: DrippingGoofBall

. "My dear Goofball, you seem to imply that your nomations are somewhat random, and yet you manage to nominate only people who have only been nominated (Adele, MikeburnFire, and Cogito Ergo Sum). Is there a reasonable explanation behind that?"

[VitaminR]

Well, dear lady, it is a mere quirk I would like to be indulged in. It is vital to me, although that may seem strange at this point. That is all there is to it.

JUST INDULGE ME!

You make a good point about DGB. I think I will follow on you that.

Unnominate: Cogito Ergo Sum

,

Nominate: DrippingGoofball