AGOT Mafia 46.5

[House Sunglass]

Going to respond to the case made by Sunglass. Then do my own analysis of the situation, and respond with a case of my own against...Sunglass.

Smart FM will use the CF to their advantage. Upcliff is calling me "fucking crazy" for still suspecting him after he voted for Ambrose (when the Ambrose lynch was taking off and the Prester lynch had just been sitting around). Come on.

Your argument here is ridiculous. Do FM ever try to use the CF to their advantage? Yeah, they do. But context matters. They might cast an early distancing vote on a partner. They might hop onto a partner's lynch mob when they feel that the lynch is inevitable, or even just likely to go through. But I've never seen one choose to be the swing vote on his partner's mob. Especially not on day 1.

Your theory is that the Prester lynch was dead, so I decided to abandon it and vote for my FM partner. So let's go back and take a look at the situation. There were 4 votes on Prester at the time (Elesham, Lake, Upcliff, Ambrose). And there were other people who seemed to suspect him -

Ugh. Prester's rebuttal certainly leaves a little to be desired.

Nothing Prester said in his posts really adressed my concernes about him, so he remains my top suspect.

It didn't seem as if he was going to be lynched right then and there, but there were people expressing suspicion of him, who seemed to be contemplating a vote for him. The Prester lynch was far from being dead.

Meanwhile, there were only 2 votes on Ambrose (Jast, Prester). My vote came 4th, but it really was cast at the same time as Sarsfield's, because it was a cross-post. So you're saying that I chose to give up on a lynch mob that was at 4 people, and that was likely to gain other votes, to instead push the lynch of my FM partner, who was only at 2 votes?

You're theory doesn't make any sense.

All right, here's a case for Ambrose/Upcliff partnership. This is going to be long, so appologies in advance:

(1) Their interactions at the very start of the game were of the forced-joke-y type I often associate with FM. (Because FM don't know quite how to respond to each other, but don't want to just ignore each other, as that looks suspicious.)

Can't see how that interaction was forced. Looks no different from most of the back and forth posts at the start of day 1. I notice you left out this part of the 'House Hunter' exchange, from Lefford -

Why would a House Hunter make things easier? I know quite a few people who are looking for houses right about now. Heck, if I was homeless you could probably call me a house hunter too.

My 2nd response was to both him and Ambrose. So is he now the 3rd member of the team?

Perhaps your first post was noticeably different in style....?

First, Caron has to go. I didn't read that whole RP paragraph he wrote, nor will I. To spare my eyese any further assualt, everyone else should do the same. Srsly.

Secondly, Prester needs to stop fake symping me. It won't make me trust you, and it won't make others vote me (because they'll all be voting Caron anyway ).

Err...no. Guess not. Forced jokes from you too, what a surprise. It's called day 1. I mean, seriously....is this really a part of your case? You couldn't come up with anything more substantial than that?

(2) Upcliff switched from Prester to Ambrose.

-------> (a) Assume Prester was lynched. I'm like 90% sure Prester was innocent. If the CF showed that, people might lend more creadence to my posts saying Prester was innocent, calling the case crap, and to the big huge argument I was having with Upcliff. And I don't think that would reflect very favorably on him.

I think I was pretty strongly associated with being willing to lynch Prester, regardless of whether or not I was voting for him.

More importantly, what you are suggesting here is that you think I am a FM who would rather lynch my FM partner than face possible scrutiny for lynching somebody who is innocent? Doesn't that seem more than a little bit backwards to you? I mean, if that's how this game works, then how could the FM ever manage to lynch an innocent in a CF game? If the FM were always afraid of being attacked for helping to lynch an innocent, and they were quite willing to lynch their own FM partners on day 1 instead....then wouldn't we be getting guilty results on day 1 a lot more frequently in our games?

-------> ( The Ambrose lynch was taking off, it was American night and so it probably was going to be the lynch (momentum is a powerful thing), and so if he could get on it early, in a CF game, he'd look good. It's the argument he's trying to pull now, minus the cursing.

Again, there were 2 votes on Ambrose when I voted for him. I cross-posted with Sarsfield, which is fairly clear if you go back and look at the posting times (my post came right after his, and it was over a paragraph long). There were a couple of other people who had expressed suspicion of Ambrose. There were also a few who had defended him. And the Prester lynch was still going strong. There was very little reason to think that Ambrose was going to be the lynch over Prester.

Not sure how you are missing the fact that my vote was the swing vote. It's kind of an important fact, and you are ignoring it. You want people to believe that I gave up on a perfectly viable lynch to become an early vote on my FM partner, just to make myself look good if he was lynched. I can't be certain about other people, but 1) I don't play FM like that - I always resist sacrificing a partner, and I can't imagine any situation where I would actually push for my own partner's lynch over another viable option on day 1 of the game, and 2) I actually can't recall ever seeing a FM seriously push for the lynch of his own partner on day 1, when there were other viable options available.

Oh, and by the way, I've caught you in yet another inconsistency. No surprise - these are adding up, and they are the heart of my case against you (FM are forced to make arguments that aren't true...ones they don't truly believe. As a result, they often make seemingly small statements that contradict prior statements. My theory is that you don't really believe the arguments you're making - you are just saying whatever works best at the time, to push your agenda, and are therefore making relatively illogical, inconsistent arguments). Anyway, here's what you just said in your case against me -

The Ambrose lynch was taking off, it was American night and so it probably was going to be the lynch (momentum is a powerful thing)

Here's what you said earlier, when I asked why you called out Inchfield for choosing to not vote for either one of Prester or Ambrose, and yet you ignored the fact that Uller had done same thing -

And Upcliff, I thought Norcorss was a viable lynch--several people had said they were suspicious of him. So I don't have a problem with Uller leaving his vote there.

So which is it? Was Ambrose probably going to be the lynch? Or was Norcross still a viable option the next morning, with 2 hours to go? Or maybe, just maybe, you're picking and choosing your arguments as you go along, and you don't really believe any of them? Yeah, I think that's the one.

So, what I find interesting is (a) neither of them voted for Prester until later, and ( their cases don't overlap at all (though the later yelling back and forth does). I personally find it rather odd that these two cases would be so complimentary. I mean, it just doesn't seem natural that they would both suspect the same player for the same posts but for completely different reasons. And not vote.

This argument is so horribly tortured that I'm almost embarrassed for you. It's pretty clear that you decided to make me your target first, and then go search out some 'evidence' for your theory second. Let's sum up your case.

1) I chose to be the swing vote for my FM partner, and push to get him lynched, instead of keeping my vote on the player who had the most votes at the time. This makes me more suspicious than any of the people who ignored Ambrose, tried to defend Ambrose, or jumped on the Ambrose mob at the end of the day.

2) I had a 'forced' interaction with Ambrose at the very start of day 1, so he must be my partner. This was obviously much different from my interaction with other players (such as Lefford - go back and read, because my interaction with him was exactly the same). And it was much different from all the other posts at the start of the game, including your own clearly hilarious first post.

3) I chose to be the swing vote against my FM partner, because I was afraid of the backlash if I lynched an innocent player (Prester). Because FM clearly never try to lynch innocent players on day 1 of the game. Nope...they always go after their partners instead.

4) I attacked the same person as my FM partner, but neither of us voted against him at the start of our attack, and the substance of our cases didn't overlap. Umm...I can't even think of something sarcastic to say about this one. I've never seen the argument used in mafia before, and I hope to never see it used again. I fail to see how this is at all relevant to 2 players being FM partners. Do FM usually make cases on the same person? Not that I have noticed - usually, I think it's the opposite, and they try to avoid having the same target. Do they usually try to attack the same person, but avoid making the same arguments against that person? Again - not in any of the 100+ games I've seen.

Uh...yeah. Nice case. Next time, you might actually want to try to come up with something that makes sense.

[House Clegane]

Well, I'm back, but things aren't quite what I'd hoped they'd be right now. Turns out I have to get an early start in the morning (I've actually got to be awake about 9 hours from now), and won't have nearly as much time tomorrow as I'd hoped. I'm sorry about this, and I'll be trying to make the best of what time I do have.

I'm afraid I won't have enough time to make a case proper, but I would like to lay out a few of my thoughts. Firstly, I'm quite sad to see Jast go. He was quite low on my suspect list, and after the lynch I was actually fairly sure that he was innocent. Second, I'm going to be seriously looking at the possibility of Hasty/Norcross/Ambrose. If I remember correctly, there is a definite connection between the three of them.

Now then, I'm sorry to run, but RL calls. I'll check in again before I go to bed and see what's going on.

[Lady Gaga]

Talk more, Lake.

[House Sunglass]

Before I get to my case on Sunglass, I'm going to analyze the voting record from day 1. Sunglass might not think of it as a useful endeavor, but I do it in nearly every game, and it almost always helps me find the FM.

8 votes for Ambrose ( Jast, Prester, Upcliff, Norcross, Caron, Sarsfield, Elesham, Sunglass)

5 votes for Prester ( Lake, Ambrose, Lefford, Inchfield, Uller)

1 vote for Lefford ( Hasty)

Prester is close to being VPI for me at this point. Sorry for going after you so much yesterday, Prester. That's how I play the game - when I see inconsistencies, I attack. When I see the opportunity to increase the pressure on somebody, I attack. I see how they react, and how the other people in the game react.

Sarsfield is a very interesting case. He voted for Ambrose, then moved his vote to Uller (but reminded Ambrose that he was still suspicious of him), and then moved his vote back to Ambrose about an hour later. Then he later removed his vote again before he went to sleep, and put it back on the Ambrose the next morning. I think he's probably innocent. While he kept his options open at the end of the day, saying a few times that he was willing to vote for Prester and that he kind of wanted to see a Prester lynch for the information, he also put his vote back on Ambrose when the vote count was tied 5 to 5. At this point, I trust him more than I trust most of the other players in the game.

Norcross, Caron, Elesham, Sunglass - If there are any Ambrose partners in on the mob, I think they can be found among these 4 players. All of their votes came a bit late. Going to have to look and see if any of the first 3 have connections to Ambrose. Obviously, I already think there's a good chance that Sunglass is evil.

Lake, Lefford, Inchfield, Uller, Hasty - Already promised that I would re-read Lefford. Since I barely had any time to post today, it's getting late, and I still want to write my case on Sunglass, that will have to come tomorrow. I'll take a look at the others while I'm at it (might as well re-read the whole damn thread). Obviously, these 2 votes don't look very good in hindsight -

I should be back for the last hour, but no gaurentee. I will leave a preliminary vote on Prester.

However, as things stand now, I'd much rather see Prester go than Ambrose.

And this comment is almost as bad -

I'm almost tempted, like someone else said, to vote for Prester again just because it would give the most information.

But I'm not going to jump to any conclusions before I search for further connections earlier in the thread.

[House Frey]

Here are Hasty's posts

His entry:

Hello tourist friends.

I exist. Yay.

In response to Prester

:cry:

You don't believe me?

Prester. He's trying to kill me by way of philosophy. It's mean.

The vote for Lefford

Change vote to Lefford since I really haven't got anything against Prester. That was pretty useless role speculation. Space-filling, anyone?

In response to Lefford

You're welcome.

Contemplates voting for Prester, but sticks with Lefford

I'm kind of tempted to vote for Prester, not because I suspect him 100%, but because I've got a nasty little feeling about Upcliff which may or may not be true. Upcliff, your response was so logical yet the attack so focused that there are two options:

1) Prester is a bit of a loose cannon and you've genuinely spotted inconsistencies or

2) Prester is an innocent, possibly the easiest one to lynch right now because of his loose-cannon-ness, and since you're one step ahead of him (and evil), you've decided to come out with guns a-blazing. Maybe even tag-teaming with Lake in a so-obvious-it-can't-be-true team?

</paranoia>

I need to take a fresh look at this tomorrow, I think. I still don't like Lefford, and I'm happy to leave my vote there.

Changes mind... doesn't want to vote Prester anymore

I don't actually want to vote out Prester anymore. The more he opens his mouth, the more convinced I am that he has no idea what he's talking about, rather than actually being evil. Someone hiding symp/FM/vig clues in a post? Who hides killer clues?

The original logic was that I felt like one of Prester/Upcliff was likely guilty. Now I'm leaning toward "Upcliff is picking on Prester" and that it's all been blown out of proportion. Yes, originally I was leaning toward, or at least musinig on, wanting to lynch one of them and then the other, but that plan rarely works.

In any case, I feel like Prester's digging his own grave here, but Upcliff's handed him the shovel. I don't know if he's innocent, but I'm leaning toward yes. :|

Lefford branched off on a new path of uselessness, imho. To that point, most people had been talking about Prester/Elesham/RP stuff. To me it seemed like Lefford was trying to distinguish himself from that pack in the safest possible way. ("Look, ma, I'm contributing!") You seem to have gotten something out of it, but I got nothing. That point you bring up, that he said we can pick a lynch free day if we want? Every single good role listed has the potential to either kill an extra person or prevent someone from being killed at night, which sort of fucks up that plan, doesn't it?

What I've got under my pants is pure speculation and/or wishful thinking on anyone's part, I assure you.

In response to Prester

Take it from me, Prester. Your argument that those could be killer clues is about as loony as they come.

Agreeing with Caron that Lefford is fishy and the Upcliff is Ambrose's Partner theory

Thank you Caron. I was planning to write this up, because I noticed the same thing and it was part of my motivation for leaving my vote on Lefford all day--I just didn't get how he could go from "Norcross made a slip about Prester" to "Oh wait, Norcross made a slip about Hasty" to "I'll vote Prester even though I made a mistake in the logic." He's now backing up his suspicion with...um....the usual stuff about Prester's inconsistencies, but it doesn't help the fact that the original argument that led him to voting Prester makes no sense.

Paranoia alert:

Isn't it strange how Upcliff (now the 4th vote on Ambrose) is all of a sudden willing to agree with Prester because Ambrose caved in to the Prester vote? I have two theories.

1) Upcliff realized that there was a fair amount of momentum on Ambrose (his partner?) and the remaining voters would not be enough to push a lynch on the now-unfavored Prester, so he switched to voting for his partner at an opportune time.

I'm not sure if this makes sense, however. When Upcliff moved his vote, he shifted from 4 on Prester and 3 on Ambrose to 3 on Prester and 4 on Ambrose. Lefford just added another vote to Prester, though, so they're at a tie.

2) If it doesn't make sense for Upcliiff to move his vote just then, then he's more likely to be innocent than not. He's obviously not Prester's partner, and the only reasoning I can think of for him to remove a vote from Prester as an evil would be the aforementioned Upcliff-senses-shift-toward-Ambrose theory. Fuck it, I've been trying to write this paragraph in a way that makes sense and my verbal skills are failing yet again. What I'm trying to say is, I'm keeping open the possibility of Upcliff's innocent primarily because he moved his vote at a key time. At the same time, Lefford's last vote for Prester makes me suspect him even more, and possibly as a partner for Ambrose as well. With 4 for Ambrose and 3 for Prester, he would have to protect his partner in some way, and evening out the vote tally is a good way to do that. It also fits in with the "Lefford's reasoning for voting Prester is full of holes" thing from earlier in the post.

Hmmm.

I'm going to leave my vote on Lefford still. :| But now that I've written this whole damn thing, as sheeplike as it would make me seem, I'm almost convinced that Ambrose might be a good choice too as a potential partner to Lefford OR Upcliff.

A repsonse to Inchfield as to why Hasty would vote Prester over Upcliff

I thought I did answer that question? I did want to lynch them both, at the time. I'm waffling again on it now...although I couldn't read the board all day, I was musing on the possibility of Prester being crazy and evil vs. crazy and innocent. This is where I was with the Upcliff/Prester idea. Although at the time I felt like Upcliff was picking on Prester more and it seemed like a sign of Upcliff's guilt, I thought there was...oh, around a 33% probability that Prester could still be evil. (That is to say, still slightly higher than if we just picked any random person, so it still made sense for me to consider voting for him.)

I'm basically clueless, and I should be putting more time into the game than I am, but I hate day 1 and I want more information from the CF or nightkill or something. I'm almost tempted, like someone else said, to vote for Prester again just because it would give the most information.

Re: Not coming to any conclusions, I don't come to conclusions in this game without any concrete information.

The reaction to the lynch (but not the night kill) and more Lefford hate

Er, hi?

Thanks for stepping it up for the innocents, Sunglass. Last night, I was actually beginning to suspect you a little (general paranoia?) but didn't want to pick a fight so late on day 1. Obviously, you've alleviated my suspicions.

I still suspect Lefford. Gosh, am I beginning to sound like a broken record here? I'd also agree that Upcliff doesn't come out looking good here. See earlier crazy theory of mine.

It's probably a good thing my schedule/board downtime didn't let me log on earlier. I probably would have voted for Prester.

If we have a Hasty/Lefford FM pair left, Hasty is spending a lot of time distancing. Probably just plain Lefford hate.

But note, no interaction with Lake or Elesham. (And the only contact with Ambrose is to mention him as a possible partner with Upcliff.) Out of Lake and Elesham, Lake would make more sense as a FM partner. Elesham moving his vote when he did makes it seem unlikely that he would be partnered with Ambrose (but I guess if they felt the situation was dicey it might be possible... but it's early in the morning and I am having trouble wrapping my head around a why.)

Also note this doesn't take into consideration that Inchfield, Uller, or Sunglass could be the third partner. That will have to wait.

Hasty, you seem to have done a very good job of being non-committal of everthing and everyone but Lefford. I am liking you for Ambrose's FM partner.

[House Clegane]

Well, I'm going to bed and won't be back to post for likely around 12 hours. There is one more thing I want to say before I do:

I do not think Upcliff or Prester is guilty. Their votes are really what made the Ambrose lynch happen, and I don't really buy Sunglass' thoughts on this at all. Basically, both of these are off the table for me for the moment, unless some sort of major change happens to point to one of them.

Of the rest of the people I am quite undecided. I don't think an Elesham lynch would be a good move right now, but the rest are open to varying degrees. More tomorrow.

[House Sunglass]

Okay, my case against Sunglass focuses on one central issue - Sunglass is clearly an experienced and confident player, yet he makes inconsistent arguments throughout the course of the game. He tries to appear to be a well-reasoned, logical player, rather than the type of player who relies on 'gut' or 'vibes', yet most of his arguments have defied logic.

When I see such a strange disconnect between a player's implied ability and his actual gameplay, I tend to suspect that something isn't right. As I said earlier, a FM has to fake a lot of what he says in the game - and that can often lead to inconsistencies.

Part 1 - Defense of Prester

Going to start with Sunglass' defense of Prester. Yeah, at this point, I'll admit that he was probably right about Prester. But I also still believe that my arguments made sense. And when I go back and read through some of the responses from Sunglass, they do not make much sense. It reads almost as if he knew that Prester was innocent - he already had the conclusion laid out for him, and he was just coming up with arguments to support that conclusion. In which case, he was prepared to ignore all logic and was okay with providing fairly loose and inconsistent answers in his defense posts - because he knew it wouldn't matter in the end, if Prester was lynched. Prester would come up innocent, and he'd look good for defending him.

This fits with my thought that one FM would attack Prester and one would defend (not sure what the 3rd would do). Ambrose attacked Prester...Sunglass defended him.

A few examples of what I'm talking about here.

Example 1

I stated that FM often cave to the pressure of the crowd. So when somebody backs down from a previously held position, due to the fear that the position has become 'unpopular' with the group, I tend to become suspicious - it fits my FM profile. Sunglass responded -

Oh please. I agree that innocents shouldn't try to placate one another, but you can't tell me that you think that's unusual. It happens all the time. And people move off of lynches that they don't think are going to go through all the time too.

I explained that just because innocents placate the crowd every once in a while doesn't mean that it's any less a part of the FM profile. He maintained his position, stating -

Well, I don't [associate the behavior with the FM]. I associate it with innocents who tend to be new and unsure of themselves.

He held fast, in spite of the fact that it was a strong theory that had been proven true time and time again in the games here. Then, later, Ambrose caved to the pressure of the group when he voted for Prester. And Ambrose turned out to be evil.

Now, does that prove the theory is true all the time? Of course not. But this is a game of odds - the best way to win is to figure out a profile for the FM, and then look for behavior that fits that profile. And Ambrose being guilty helps support the idea that the theory 'FM tend to want to placate the crowd and avoid being unpopular' is a solid part of the FM profile. Yet Sunglass dismissed it as if it was completely invalid and irrelevant. A clearly experienced player shouldn't be so willing to ignore behavior that could be indicative of guilt (by the way, if you need proof of him being experienced, I can provide quotes - this is based on in-game stuff, not an alt guess).

Point being - he was ignoring a logical argument, because it didn't fit with the position that he wanted to take. Makes me think he had ulterior motives for being so committed to that position.

Example 2

Sunglass claimed that Prester was the 1st and most vocal vote on Elesham. Inchfield points out that Prester was actually the 3rd vote. Sunglass responds -

Sorry--I'd remembered him as the first. (I also said he was the "first and most vocal", and he was still the most vocal.)

The interesting thing here is that Sunglass called me out for being opportunistic when I was the 3rd and most vocal vote on Prester. Yet Sunglass gives Prester a pass when he was the 3rd and most vocal vote on Elesham. Why was that okay for Prester, but not for me? Why was I called opportunistic, while he was defended? Sunglass avoided the question by providing the vague answer that he liked the case on Elesham, but not the case on Prester. Umm...okay, that's nice, but if the 3rd and most vocal vote is 'opportunistic' in one case, it should be in the other one too, even if you like one case more than the other.

In this example, Sunglass is both inconsistent and illogical. When evidence supports his stated position that Prester is innocent, it's okay. When that same evidence cuts against his position, it's ignored (or even worse, it's hidden - Sunglass may have intentionally made the incorrect statement that Prester was the 1st vote on Elesham, rather than the 3rd, in order to distance Prester's actions from my actions, since he wanted to attack me for them).

Example 3

Sunglass claimed that Prester had abandoned a case that he had stopped believing in, and that doing so was okay in his eyes -

I'd personally rather someone abandoned a case they ceased to believe in than push one they didn't believe in. Doing the latter is not in our best interests.

The thing is, Prester hadn't abandoned his case. He still suspected Elesham. He just didn't want to stick with his case, because it was unpopular.

[Elesham was] still favourite, still the person that, right then, i'd want lynched most.

Once again, Sunglass was lying and twisting past statements in an effort to continue to defend Prester. In doing so, he was making statements that were inconsistent with actual events in the thread.

Part 2 - Attack on Inchfield

More inconsistency from Sunglass. Sunglass attacked Inchfield for choosing to not vote for either of the top 2 suspects, and just leaving the thread, when day was only a few hours from ending.

Now this I really did not like. We need a lynch. At this point, there were what, three hours left? And several of us had said we'd be rushed and/or unavailable. I mean, Inchfield "poked" at a lot of people, and was vocal and all, but he didn't have big, huge (or at least, didn't seem to have) suspicions against Hasty (that's who he was voting, right?) so to refuse to vote for any of the viable candidates (and fail to make a last-minute push for his own) just seems incredibly unhelpful. Pick a side, Inch, and put your vote where your mouth is.

Yet Sunglass blatantly ignored the fact that Uller did the exact same thing. Here's Uller's post -

Well, this is it for me for the day. Looks like Ambrose is on 6 votes, so there should be no difficulty getting a lynch on him in the remaining three hours or so. Not the outcome I'd prefer, but immeasurably better than no lynch at all.

Anyway, I'll keep my vote on Norcross as I'd like to keep that on the record.

Be back later.

I called out Sunglass for going after Inchfield and not saying anything about Uller. Sunglass tried to brush it off, responding -

I thought Norcorss was a viable lynch--several people had said they were suspicious of him. So I don't have a problem with Uller leaving his vote there.

So Sunglass feels that Norcross was a viable lynch with 2 hours left in the day. In spite of the fact that Ambrose had 6 votes, Prester had 4 votes, and Norcross only had 2 votes. In spite of the fact that only a couple of people had posted in the thread in the hour leading up to Uller's post that he was leaving (and one of those people was Norcross, who wouldn't vote for himself, while the other was Caron, who stated that he had to go and he wasn't certain if he would be back before the end of the day). His position makes no sense. In fact, not even Sunglass agrees with his own position. Because later on, he says -

The Ambrose lynch was taking off, it was American night and so it probably was going to be the lynch (momentum is a powerful thing

As I said in a previous post, this is more evidence of Sunglass picking and choosing his arguments, saying whatever is necessary to support the point he is trying to make. Yet another mess of inconsistencies that are impossible for Sunglass to explain.

[House Sunglass]

Part 3 - Attack on Upcliff

The case on me is another example of Sunglass reaching his conclusion first (that I'm going to be his 'evil' target), and then searching for evidence to back it up. Which is why all of the 'evidence' is so weak.

Example 1

Sunglass accused me of waiting to vote for Prester....of not casting my vote until after Lake votes for him. Said that I waited because I was making sure I had support for my position, and labeled me opportunistic.

Now, first off, I think it was pretty clear at that point in time that I was suspicious of Prester. So I'm not sure why anybody would think that I cared about getting support before I cast a vote. I was going to be associated with the anti-Prester side, regardless of whether or not I voted for him. So it's not like I could have decided to not vote for Prester and escape scrutiny from people, if Prester was lynched and came up innocent.

Second, the reality is that my vote was cast for a very specific reason - I wanted to pressure Prester into answering my questions. I pointed this out to Sunglass, and he brushed it off. I explained how I had asked Prester questions, how he had posted in the thread but ignored them, and how I voted as a result of that. Sunglass didn't care. After a lot of back and forth, Sunglass even went so far as to do a timeline of all of the posts - so it's clear that he read the exchange that took place. He saw that Prester ignored my questions, and that I voted to prompt him to answer. He might have even re-read when Prester admitted that he ignored my questions on purpose -

Why did I ignore your post? Perhaps I'm not overly comfortable explaining why i make and move votes early in a day. Perhaps i think they are more effective if not over analysed.

Yet he absolutely refused to acknowledge that perhaps I could be telling the truth when providing an explanation for my vote. Why? Because doing so wouldn't fit with his stated position that I am evil.

Example 2

The weak case he made against me a few hours ago. Already broke this down in an earlier post.

Part 4 - Interaction with Ambrose

This final part goes beyond Sunglass' pattern of inconsistency, to focus on his interaction with our known FM. It's pretty interesting. Sunglass acts exactly how I would expect a FM partner to act.

First, his initial suspect list -

Who I'd like to see lynched today

1) Upcliff (mmm, Cliff bars drool.gif)

2) Elesham, Lake (they're tied)

4) Norcross

5) Hasty

Who I don't really care about

6) Ambrose, Caron, Inchfield, Jast, Uller

Who I'd rather keep around

11) Sarsfield

12) Lefford

13) Prester

Who won't be lynched under any circumstances

14) Sunglass ('cause they're my sunshine, my only sunshine)

No shock that Ambrose falls into the middle group. Also happens to be tied for the biggest group. A very safe place for a FM to hide his partner.

He doesn't focus on Ambrose until he accumulates a few votes, at which point he says -

I'll go reread Ambrose, since I had no strong feelings about him. Off the top of my head, I recall talking a lot about Prester but no one else, and talking lots of game theory. So yeah, he could be evil.

Very noncommittal. Leaving his options open. Soon after, he follows up with this post -

Ok, well, my reread pretty much was in line with my memory. One thing I noticed--Ambrose did say, at one point, that he was "working on another case", though he never stated who and never made that case, going back to vote Prester (for the first time, despite his original case and several other comments.) It's kind of possible that "the other case" was on Caron since he briefly mentioned him in his next post saying all he'd done was RP (basically) but now he was back and should contribute more.

So...I dunno. There are already 4 of 8 votes on him. I don't feel like my vote is urgently needed right now, and hopefully I can get online in the morning. So I'll hold off for the time being.

I also reread Inchfield, since something about him rubs me the wrong way, but I think that just might be a personality clash. tongue.gif

Lastly I looked at Norcross, since I was suspicious of them and it really doesn't seem like an Upcliff lynch will go through, and I highly doubt I could get Lake or Elesham either. (Yes, this is me looking for a lynch that I think has a chance of going through, because I'm hugely suspicious of Upcliff but think my vote's going to waste there.)

So, what I found on him...

He has a few suspicions, and keeps open the option to vote for Ambrose later. But decides to "hold off his vote for the time being". He then quickly moves the discussion on to other suspects. This is exactly what I would expect from a FM partner. Agree that Ambrose could be suspicious, but hold back your vote while he still has a chance, and try to move the mob in another direction.

Note that the votes stood at 4 for Ambrose and 4 for Prester at the time of that post. Sunglass didn't want to vote for Ambrose, and he couldn't vote for Prester after defending him all day. So his only realistic option was to try to push the group onto another lynch. Which is exactly what he did.

After that, Sunglass avoids voting for Ambrose until the very end of the day. He waits until its 6 votes for Ambrose and 6 for Prester - Ambrose still has a shot. He then sees Elesham pop up and change his vote to Ambrose - making it 7 for Ambrose and only 5 for Prester. He figures that, at that point, it's a foregone conclusion. So he jumps in and finishes off Ambrose, trying to look as good as possible.

Summary

I'll make this short.

1) Sunglass is a confident, experienced player. Yet throughout the game, he has made inconsistent arguments, has ignored logical arguments, and has attempted to undermine strong, effective theories on how to find the FM. His gameplay doesn't fit with his implied level of ability. It does fit with how I'd expect a FM to play. See above for many examples.

2) Sunglass fits as a partner for Ambrose.

[House Connington]

Sorry for going after you so much yesterday, Prester. That's how I play the game - when I see inconsistencies, I attack. When I see the opportunity to increase the pressure on somebody, I attack. I see how they react, and how the other people in the game react.

It worked... At the end of the day, Mafia's about lynching FMs, however we get there.

I'm happy enough being human bait

[House Dondarrion]

Summary

I'll make this short.

1) Sunglass is a confident, experienced player. Yet throughout the game, he has made inconsistent arguments, has ignored logical arguments, and has attempted to undermine strong, effective theories on how to find the FM. His gameplay doesn't fit with his implied level of ability. It does fit with how I'd expect a FM to play. See above for many examples.

2) Sunglass fits as a partner for Ambrose.

As a whole, that's... actually pretty persuasive. You've certainly highlighted some bothersome issues in Sunglass' play. Will be very interested in seeing the response.

[House Connington]

Far better presented case than my version. I'm close to coting Sunglass, but I hope he might come out with a response soon.

For the record, he's now my main suspect. I don't like Elesham, and probably never will feel easy about him, but his vote would have been a strange one, swinging from me to ambrose. Perhaps a very bold move to throw us off? It would certainly fit with his early day 1 profile, and suggest some sort of Swann defence, if i understand that right? So Elesham will be my second choice.

Right now I'm pretty busy, so won't get to make a third suspect until someone else presents the facts... I think i've earnt a few lazy hours after yesterday. :-p

[House Tyrell]

I'm going in to work today, yet again unexpectedly. I really don't feel like i'm playing well, mostly because of this job situation. Address any concerns you may have towards me, and I'll answer them when I'm back.

[House Mooton]

My assumptions:

The FM would be crazy to sacrifice one of their own needlessly on day 1.

Prester is innocent. (VPI)

Therefore any evil player who had already expressed strong suspicions of Prester, especially anyone who was already nicely placed in Prester’s lynch mob (the largest) when Ambrose’s lynch started to increase would not move across to Ambrose’s. This makes Elesham and Upcliff VPI.

Anyone who tipped the balance towards Ambrose or away from Prester when they hadn’t come out strongly in favour of Ambrose/against Prester before, is unlikely to be FM, because Prester was always a viable lynch. This makes Norcross PI.

I also regard Sarsfield as PI, although he wavered a bit, because he kept coming back to Ambrose and needn’t have done. (ETA: I'll check him out again if I have time though)

This leaves me with Hasty, Inchfield, Lake, Lefford, Sunglass and Uller. I would be happy to lynch any from this list, but would like to examine each seperately.

Currently Lefford and Uller are my top suspects. That is, I already had them as suspects yesterday and when the lynch result came up this really made them look bad. But the FM would have known that would happen, so I would expect them to be a bit better concealed. However they have a lot to answer for and I need to be convinced they are innocent before I look elsewhere. I already highlighted some of my concerns on Lefford here, so I will present the case on Uller next.

Upcliff’s already done a good case on Sunglass. I agree Sunglass is up there as a high suspect.

I’m drawing a blank on Lake so he definitely needs pressure on him.

Hasty and Inchfield are on my list too, but not so high. I could have a blind spot here, and certainly wouldn’t rule them out as FM.

ETA: added link

[House Dondarrion]

Currently Lefford and Uller are my top suspects. That is, I already had them as suspects yesterday and when the lynch result came up this really made them look bad.

Ok, I can definitely see why I look a little tarnished today, what with my support for Prester over Ambrose at the end of the day and all, but the second sentence you've quoted there doesn't actually reflect anything you said about me before the lynch of Ambrose yesterday. In fact, the only time you mentioned me that I could see (and correct me if I'm wrong) is where you said I'd raised some good points about Norcross, a player who at the time you suspected more than Ambrose or Prester. So to come out now and say that I was one of your suspects yesterday when I wasn't even on the list of suspects you posted looks a little dubious.

Anyway, make your case on me by all means. I'll be back to answer it in the morning.

[House Mooton]

Ok, I can definitely see why I look a little tarnished today, what with my support for Prester over Ambrose at the end of the day and all, but the second sentence you've quoted there doesn't actually reflect anything you said about me before the lynch of Ambrose yesterday. In fact, the only time you mentioned me that I could see (and correct me if I'm wrong) is where you said I'd raised some good points about Norcross, a player who at the time you suspected more than Ambrose or Prester. So to come out now and say that I was one of your suspects yesterday when I wasn't even on the list of suspects you posted looks a little dubious.

OK, fair enough. You don't have to take my word for it, and I can't prove it. I only mentioned my top four suspects on thread because I didn't want to give the FM too much information. Of course, if you turn out to be FM I will read into this post a petulent "but if we had known that we might have night-killed you" [Just realised that was silly because I did express my suspicion of Uller at the start of the night so they could still have night killed me had they thought me a threat...]

Working on the Uller case now, will take a little while to gather the quotes and stuff.

[House Mooton]

Uller comes across as a reasonable player trying to stay as aloof as possible.

His first posts in the game are all fluff:

All this discussion so far proves is that RP is clearly a non-optimal course for players regardless of faction. Which should have been obvious to everyone already. Not that I expect any lessons will be learned this time either.

No avatar based votes from me yet.

I think you mean double edged.

Anyway, I think Prester's stance on the vigilante is unnecessarily restrictive. Especially this game, considering the coroner finder effectively removes most of the benefits relating to counterclaiming and we discover the faction of the deceased anyway. I'm not encouraging a night 1 kill or anything, but in a coroner finder game I think there are definitely benefits to a carefully chosen kill regardless of outcome.

You get data from the vigilante kill though. Admittedly you don't get the same data as with a lynching, but a carefully chosen vigilante kill can give you plenty of information to work with regardless of the actual CF result. To suggest the vigilante kill gives no information but a lynch does is disingenuous.

Good to know.

I said in the post you quoted that lynches were often as bad or worse than vigilante kills and that I found Prester's stance on vigilantes to be unconvincing for that reason. I certainly didn't say 'far worse', which implies that is always the case.

Certainly not always. But there are situations where a vigilante kill is substantially more valuable/informative than a lynch (which would occur a day later).

His first attempts to weigh in on suspicions come 1.5 hours after Jast puts the first vote on Ambrose (for sounding least sincere in attacking Prester). Upcliff and Prester are arguing in full flow at this point.

Ugh. Prester's rebuttal certainly leaves a little to be desired. I'm going to leave this one alone for the moment though, as I think Prester has quite enough attention on them already.

One remark that did catch my eye was this from Hasty:

[quotation here]

Now, perhaps it's just me, but I don't really get this paragraph. I'm not sure why if you have a nasty feeling about Upcliff you'd immediately want to follow their lead. Care to explain, Hasty?

Note how Uller doesn’t mention Jast’s post on Ambrose, but focuses on Prester and Upcliff, and stays out of the fight (whereas the one FM we know has been joining in the anti-Prester sentiments). Uller does leave himself an option to jump on Prester later, but he tries to steer attention to Hasty’s comment about Upcliff.

Then suspicion of Ambrose starts to increase. Jast has put the case against Ambrose more strongly, Sarsfield revotes for Ambrose, and Ambrose put the vote down on Prester which Prester and I then both commented unfavourably on. Prester has 4 votes and Ambrose 3.

When Uller gets a vote from Sarsfield for being quiet, he responds:

Ow. That's mean.

I have to say I don't really like the Upcliff/Prester back and forth. Too much the mismatch in terms of argumentative ability, which makes it harder to see whats going on. For me, Prester's play so far looks like relative inexperience combined with some sloppy reasoning (not that that's a sign of innocence by any means) so it means Upcliff looks like a bully. Not really sure what to do with this particular issue. I'm going to try and find a more palatable course of action to follow.

This is completely non-committal, again he stays aloof, and again makes no comment on Ambrose.

Then Upcliff moves his vote off Prester and onto Ambrose, making it Ambrose 4 Prester 3.

Norcoss then mentions that he is not suspicious of Prester but would like to vote for Ambrose.

Hmm. Interesting. Right now, Norcross is the player I like least. That last post just looks like they want to travel with the prevailing wind. As the Prester mob loses momentum, Norcross comes out and start talking about how obviously innocent Prester is, although they've never mentioned it before. Meanwhile the mob appears to be shifting in the Ambrose direction so Norcross conveniently fuels that fire (without laying a vote) and clears out of the thread. I don't like the feel of it at all.

So once again Uller stays aloof from the Prester situation, and attacks Norcross (who has no votes on him, but I had recently done a quick case on Norcross and had him higher up my suspect list than Ambrose, Sunglass had voted him previously for the Hasty gender slip, and Lefford and Sarsfield had looked at him briefly too I think.)

Then Norcross actually put his vote down on Ambrose, making it 5 for Ambrose 4 for Prester, and Uller cross-posts:

Um. So, time is running out and I'm not going to have access to a computer for days end. I'll make another post in half an hour or so with my choice.

Looking at the candidates at this point, we have Ambrose and Prester and I'd like to say Lefford and Norcross as well, seeing as how I don't feel that good about Norcross at the moment.

The Prester case as I see it is based on erratic (read poor) play on his part followed by an inability to escape the spotlight for a variety of reasons. My reading of events is that Prester fucked up in his overzealous attack on Elesham and massively overstated his position but saw no way of admitting that without looking bad so he tried to bluff his way through. Didn't really work as his reasoning wasn't all that good. Basically he's spent the rest of the day fielding (most some) questions aimed at him and distancing himself from his unwise Elesham position (aided by Elesham's disappearance). Prester's definitely made some mistakes that suggest inexperienced FM to me so this would probably be a lynch I can support if necessary.

Ambrose I'm torn on. I mean his misstep is basically the same as Prester's, caving to peer pressure. It can be a sign of someone placating as many people as possible in order to slip out of the spotlight which makes most sense for an FM (although it must be said, innocents can do similar things). However, right now I feel there's something a little odd about the way his little mob came about which leads me to favour lynching Prester more than Ambrose if I had to choose.

Lefford I don't find especially suspicious.

Norcross is my favourite to lynch right now. Their second most recent post was what raised my hackles as it looks very much like someone trying to reinforce a momentum shift in the game without appearing on the voting record with a few bits of extra fluff thrown in on the side. That combined with the absence of any other contribution of note makes them my first choice unless it looks impossible to get a lynch.

Edited for: Clarity (Crossposted with Norcross)

So this is where Uller finally takes a side, and aligns himself against Prester, but spends a lot of time carefully hedging his bets here. He still suspects Norcross but seems to be preparing the ground for a shift.

At this point I put my vote on Ambrose, making it 6 to Ambrose 4 to Prester.

Uller’s decision at this point (15 mins later) is interesting. He does not in fact jump on either mob, but stays on Norcross:

Well, this is it for me for the day. Looks like Ambrose is on 6 votes, so there should be no difficulty getting a lynch on him in the remaining three hours or so. Not the outcome I'd prefer, but immeasurably better than no lynch at all.

Anyway, I'll keep my vote on Norcross as I'd like to keep that on the record.

Be back later.

Now, it’s two (or three according to Uller) hours left here until the day ends.

If Uller was FM, would he have thought: “Ambrose is going down, better get on the mob†or “We still could get Prester lynched so I better jump on Prester to try and save Ambrose†or “I don’t know what to do.†or "Let's wait and see if it swings the other way again" or what?

Fact is, he declared he wanted to be on the record as voting Norcross, and then (apparently) left. Innocent or guilty?

In the interim, Prester defends Norcross’s decision to vote for Ambrose, and Inchfield says he is suspicious of Prester for defending Norcross.

After the board downtime, Uller picks up on this:

Thanks, Targ.

I don't really get why Prester has gone so heavily in defense of Norcross as soon as they came under some attention. Certainly has interesting implications. My vote stands on Norcross for now, but my suspicion of Prester has risen a fair bit from recent events.

So, there is a last minute opportunity to suspect Prester more, and Uller takes what is offered... but still does not vote. Since Norcross originally voted Ambrose because there wasn’t much time left and it seemed it had to be Prester or Ambrose, but now there is an extension to the time, Uller says to Norcross, his suspect:

Ok. Leaving aside the fact that Prester was being pummeled for a lot more than just the Elesham vote retraction, what do you think now? I mean we have hours to spare at the moment, so it's hardly as if Prester and Ambrose are our only choices. I'd like to hear what you think now that your options aren't so restricted by the night deadline.

The question is whether this is an innocent trying to pressurise his suspect to give away more, or whether this is an FM trying to get a vote off his partner (note how he emphasises the strength of the case against Prester).

Upcliff then picks Sunglass up for giving Uller a pass but not Inchfield. Uller points out he believes he was three hours off the deadline not two. Jast says he likes Uller’s points on Norcross [oh, Uller, it wasn’t me it was Jast].

Inchfield votes for Prester, making them tied at 5 votes, but says he would prefer a Norcross lynch. Sarsfield then returns and says he would prefer a Prester lynch (for information), but is too tired to think and replaces his vote on Ambrose. Ambrose then has 6 to Prester’s 5. Norcross says he won’t budge from Ambrose because there’s no chance of getting an Inchfield lynch. It is at this point that Uller finally joins the Prester mob, citing the same reason as Inchfield (Prester’s defence of Norcross):

That's a slightly ridiculous question. And one which I've pre-emptively answered in post #244. I've even quoted the post where I answered it for you in my recent reply to Upcliff. How convenient for everyone!

Honestly, if the group couldn't muster two votes in three hours in the American morning, then I'd have been astounded. Almost anything can happen in three hours of play. Entire lynch mobs have been born and carried out to fruition. So I wouldn't call myself oblivious to the deadline, I just didn't see any real cause for panic. Once Ambrose got to six votes, a lynch was almost certainly going to be carried out before night fell. Putting Ambrose at 7 votes at that point seemed a little ill advised to me.

However, as things stand now, I'd much rather see Prester go than Ambrose. Prester's defenses of Norcross as soon as they got some attention their way definitely made me wonder, given my opinion of Norcross. The rest of his play today doesn't fill me with confidence either.

So the question is, is Uller genuinely suspicious of Norcross and hence Prester for defending him, or is this a last chance to save Ambrose? The bad guys must have thought they were still in with a chance here, since suspicions of Norcross are slightly increasing, giving some final momentum to Prester’s mob, and Sarsfield, one of the core Ambrose voters, was definitely wavering – if Sarsfield could be persuaded to switch, it would have been 7-5 to Prester.

As it happens, Elesham switches off Prester onto Ambrose, and Sarsfield wavers still, but does not move, and Ambrose is lost.

So, I sum up the case against Uller:

(1) He made only fluff posts up until Jast put the first justified vote into Ambrose.

(2) He stayed aloof from the Prester/Upcliff discussions when Ambrose was getting in trouble, and tried to sidetrack people onto Hasty and later Norcross.

(3) He never commented on the case on Ambrose.

(4) He subtly kept attention on the case against Prester, also giving himself an opening to jump on the Prester mob.

(5) When Ambrose was at 6-4 and the day end was just a couple of hours away, he left his vote on Norcross.

(6) When Ambrose was on 6-5 with more time left, and Sarsfield was showing signs he might switch from Ambrose to Prester, Uller jumped on the Prester mob.

Edit: working on making the case clearer to read, only cosmetic changes.

[House Mooton]

Oh well, to pass the time I looked at Hasty as well.

Hasty’s first posts are joky. His first substantive post is where he votes Lefford for useless role speculation.

Sunglass (and Lefford sort of) pick up Norcross for referring to Hasty as ‘she’.

When Upcliff pursues his assault against Prester (before Ambrose is suspected at all), Hasty writes:

I'm kind of tempted to vote for Prester, not because I suspect him 100%, but because I've got a nasty little feeling about Upcliff which may or may not be true. Upcliff, your response was so logical yet the attack so focused that there are two options:

1) Prester is a bit of a loose cannon and you've genuinely spotted inconsistencies or

2) Prester is an innocent, possibly the easiest one to lynch right now because of his loose-cannon-ness, and since you're one step ahead of him (and evil), you've decided to come out with guns a-blazing. Maybe even tag-teaming with Lake in a so-obvious-it-can't-be-true team?

</paranoia>

I need to take a fresh look at this tomorrow, I think. I still don't like Lefford, and I'm happy to leave my vote there.

I did actually agree with Hasty about Upcliff at this time, so I don’t find the Upcliff-suspicion a problem, not indeed the Lefford-suspicion. However as Inchfield points out later, it is odd to be suspicous of Upcliff picking on Prester and be suspicious enough of Prester to vote for him. For me, it was because I thought Prester innocent [and therefore couldn’t believe Upcliff would think him guilty] that I first become suspicious of Upcliff. In his next post Hasty is moving towards declaring Prester innocent:

I don't actually want to vote out Prester anymore. The more he opens his mouth, the more convinced I am that he has no idea what he's talking about, rather than actually being evil. Someone hiding symp/FM/vig clues in a post? Who hides killer clues?

The original logic was that I felt like one of Prester/Upcliff was likely guilty. Now I'm leaning toward "Upcliff is picking on Prester" and that it's all been blown out of proportion. Yes, originally I was leaning toward, or at least musinig on, wanting to lynch one of them and then the other, but that plan rarely works.

In any case, I feel like Prester's digging his own grave here, but Upcliff's handed him the shovel. I don't know if he's innocent, but I'm leaning toward yes. :|

Lefford branched off on a new path of uselessness, imho. To that point, most people had been talking about Prester/Elesham/RP stuff. To me it seemed like Lefford was trying to distinguish himself from that pack in the safest possible way. ("Look, ma, I'm contributing!") You seem to have gotten something out of it, but I got nothing. That point you bring up, that he said we can pick a lynch free day if we want? Every single good role listed has the potential to either kill an extra person or prevent someone from being killed at night, which sort of fucks up that plan, doesn't it?

What I've got under my pants is pure speculation and/or wishful thinking on anyone's part, I assure you.

That post was made after Jast’s vote on Ambrose, but before Ambrose put that delayed vote on Prester which rang so many alarm bells. Hasty is probably burning his boats in terms of being able to vote for Prester, but the FM don’t yet know they need a strong alternative to Ambrose. Hasty has been pursuing Lefford for some time, so it’s safe enough for him to continue with that fixation, which I also was pursuing in parallel (so it seems justifiable enough to me ):

Thank you Caron. I was planning to write this up, because I noticed the same thing and it was part of my motivation for leaving my vote on Lefford all day--I just didn't get how he could go from "Norcross made a slip about Prester" to "Oh wait, Norcross made a slip about Hasty" to "I'll vote Prester even though I made a mistake in the logic." He's now backing up his suspicion with...um....the usual stuff about Prester's inconsistencies, but it doesn't help the fact that the original argument that led him to voting Prester makes no sense.

Paranoia alert:

Isn't it strange how Upcliff (now the 4th vote on Ambrose) is all of a sudden willing to agree with Prester because Ambrose caved in to the Prester vote? I have two theories.

1) Upcliff realized that there was a fair amount of momentum on Ambrose (his partner?) and the remaining voters would not be enough to push a lynch on the now-unfavored Prester, so he switched to voting for his partner at an opportune time.

I'm not sure if this makes sense, however. When Upcliff moved his vote, he shifted from 4 on Prester and 3 on Ambrose to 3 on Prester and 4 on Ambrose. Lefford just added another vote to Prester, though, so they're at a tie.

2) If it doesn't make sense for Upcliiff to move his vote just then, then he's more likely to be innocent than not. He's obviously not Prester's partner, and the only reasoning I can think of for him to remove a vote from Prester as an evil would be the aforementioned Upcliff-senses-shift-toward-Ambrose theory. Fuck it, I've been trying to write this paragraph in a way that makes sense and my verbal skills are failing yet again. What I'm trying to say is, I'm keeping open the possibility of Upcliff's innocent primarily because he moved his vote at a key time. At the same time, Lefford's last vote for Prester makes me suspect him even more, and possibly as a partner for Ambrose as well. With 4 for Ambrose and 3 for Prester, he would have to protect his partner in some way, and evening out the vote tally is a good way to do that. It also fits in with the "Lefford's reasoning for voting Prester is full of holes" thing from earlier in the post.

Hmmm.

I'm going to leave my vote on Lefford still. :| But now that I've written this whole damn thing, as sheeplike as it would make me seem, I'm almost convinced that Ambrose might be a good choice too as a potential partner to Lefford OR Upcliff.

The second part of this post – the paranoid conspiracy theory, is very interesting. The Upcliff/Ambrose link is incredibly farfetched, as I replied at the time, and Upcliff has laid out the arguments clearly enough. Hasty was the first to make an Upcliff/Ambrose link, which assumes Ambrose is evil (with Upcliff or Lefford as a partner). Was this Hasty preparing for the kind of case Sunglass is trying to make now, where if Ambrose was lynched they would try and bring Upcliff or Lefford down? [inchfield wondered at the time if it was a set-up of Upcliff]

On the other hand, it looks like Hasty is saying he’s willing to join the Ambrose mob. Given he seems to be willing to lynch Ambrose now more than Prester, it’s odd he doesn’t get on the lynch at all.

Inchfield challenges Hasty about his earlier statement that he’d vote for Prester despite suspecting Upcliff:

Hasty, I still don't understand why, if you suspected Upcliff more, you were tempted to vote for Prester over upcliff at the time. Your answer skirted the issue by saying you no longer wanted to vote for Prester. Although you confirmed to me that you were planning on lynching them both, which I see as a set up, but you backed off that plan a bit.

Hasty replies:

I thought I did answer that question? I did want to lynch them both, at the time. I'm waffling again on it now...although I couldn't read the board all day, I was musing on the possibility of Prester being crazy and evil vs. crazy and innocent. This is where I was with the Upcliff/Prester idea. Although at the time I felt like Upcliff was picking on Prester more and it seemed like a sign of Upcliff's guilt, I thought there was...oh, around a 33% probability that Prester could still be evil. (That is to say, still slightly higher than if we just picked any random person, so it still made sense for me to consider voting for him.)

I'm basically clueless, and I should be putting more time into the game than I am, but I hate day 1 and I want more information from the CF or nightkill or something. I'm almost tempted, like someone else said, to vote for Prester again just because it would give the most information.

Re: Not coming to any conclusions, I don't come to conclusions in this game without any concrete information.

No mention of Ambrose here, which is a bit suspicious. He could be using Inchfield’s question to slide back to lynching Prester – echoing the oft-made statement about the amount of information from a Prester lynch.

He never did jump on either Prester or Ambrose, perhaps for reasons of time, as pointed out by Norcross.

Hasty’s comment after the Ambrose lynch is directed at Sunglass:

Er, hi?

Thanks for stepping it up for the innocents, Sunglass. Last night, I was actually beginning to suspect you a little (general paranoia?) but didn't want to pick a fight so late on day 1. Obviously, you've alleviated my suspicions.

I still suspect Lefford. Gosh, am I beginning to sound like a broken record here? I'd also agree that Upcliff doesn't come out looking good here. See earlier crazy theory of mine.

It's probably a good thing my schedule/board downtime didn't let me log on earlier. I probably would have voted for Prester.

The last sentence seems disingenuous. The post could be Hasty ‘sucking up to’ Sunglass, nurturing the Upcliff suspicions which had been quite widespread yesterday (but the CF result changed that for some of us ).

Question for Hasty: you say you probably would have voted for Prester, but you had a hypothesis that Ambrose might be evil along with Upcliff or Lefford, and you seemed to have dropped your suspicions of Prester. So why do you say you’d have voted Prester over Ambrose?

Edit: cosmetic changes here too as well, for clarity.

[House Targaryen]

It is day 2.

12 players remain: Caron, Elesham, Hasty, Inchfield, Lake, Lefford, Norcross, Prester, Sarsfield, Sunglass, Uller, Upcliff.

7 votes are needed for a conviction or 6 to go to night.

1 vote for Sunglass ( Upcliff)

1 vote for Lake ( Sarsfield)

1 vote for Hasty ( Norcross)

9 players have not voted: Caron, Elesham, Hasty, Inchfield, Lake, Lefford, Prester, Sunglass, Uller.

[House Mooton]

Ah well, put my vote on Uller for the moment. I would like to hear his defence to my case.

But I too am waiting to hear Lake's views on players, Sunglass's reply to Upcliff's case, and some answers from Hasty on what Norcross (and I) has raised.

[House Corbray]

I'm really sorry to do this, but this is just a post to avoid being modkilled, as I may enter into that territory.

Feel free to lynch Upcliff, Norcross, or Inchfield in my absence. I'll be back with a more susbstantial post in the American night.