AGOT Mafia 46.5

[Magic Mirror]

This is a case on Inchfield, which I'm making independently from Caron's, which I've only skimmed. I feel like Inchfield has been attacking me for a while and I wanted to formulate my own opinion of him.

This is the first post of his which sticks out to me as being suspicious, in the light of Ambrose being innocent. He has "no read" on Ambrose. He also has a bonus defense of Lefford, for good measure. In his next post, he goes after me and Jast, both of whom I know to be innocent. So Inchfield is already proving himself to have questionable judgment.

Also doesn't like:

-Lake for focusing too much on Prester

-Sunglass for more tunnel vision with regard to Lake/Upcliff

"At this early point i'm unwilling to add what could be the catalyst vote to the lynch of either Prester or Ambrose, so I'm leaving it where it is. Good luck." I realize I was the one person who failed to vote for either of the top two suspects, but this just reads to me like, "I don't want you to judge me for my opinion either way, so I'm not going to make one."

But then, after a day of not really suspecting Prester, he reopens the door to getting on that mob. And then votes for Prester.

I don't like the way he justifies trying to vote for me again just because I'm the odd man out on voting. Profiles don't always work, plus with all the downtime on the board and people's sleep schedules, there's plenty of room for people not to be able to vote with a crowd.

I don't mind opening up my tunnel vision a little. I still have my eye on Lefford, but Inchfield is where my vote is for now.

[House Clegane]

Sorry guys, turns out things are even crazier today than I thought. I've read through the recent stuff and the cases made, and when I get back I can do a bit more, before I have to fo out again.

[House Clegane]

Well then, I'm back and I did a full reread, working on a case that Hasty and Norcross are Ambrose's partners. I'm not actually going to relate to you what I put together, because quite frankly it sucked. While initially I became more suspiscious of Norcross after the lynch, after the reread I feel a lot better about him and the connection between the two is tenuous at best. So, while I'm not going to dismiss the possibility, I think it's pretty unlikely all told.

On the other hand, my reread really reaffirmed my thoughts about Hasty. He managed to keep his options open for voting for any of Norcross, Ambrose or, to a lesser degree since his comments on the case were so wishy-washy, Prester. He didn't actually vote for any of them, and indeed never really acknowledged the case on Ambrose. A Sunglass/Ambrose/Hasty partnership makes special sense, having one person on each of three possible lynches (well okay, two on possible lynches and Hasty all alone on me, but hey). Hasty also hasn't exactly wowed me with his, erm, contributions, so for the moment my vote goes to Hasty.

[House Mooton]

I agree Hasty's replies have been rather unsatisfactory.

Hasty - you came in and made a 'case' on Inchfield, and I'm glad you finally got round to answering some of what Inchfield had been asking you yesterday. But you didn't comment on what Norcross or I have been saying about you today, nor answer my question.

You haven't given a straight answer very often. When you say:

Profiles don't always work, plus with all the downtime on the board and people's sleep schedules, there's plenty of room for people not to be able to vote with a crowd.

Are you confirming Norcross's speculation that you were unable to get to the board at the time you had planned, to put a vote on Ambrose or Prester? (Prester seemingly - but I have asked you about that in my earlier Hasty post)

Could you also make comments on a few more players - what do you feel about Lake, Uller, Upcliff, Sunglass for example?

[House Mooton]

On day 2 we are still waiting for:

• Elesham - Norcross asked what you think about Prester now
  
  
• Lake - what was/is this case on Sunglass, and you need to explain your behaviour yesterday
  

(Both Elesham and Lake also need to explain their current suspects)

Some players have appeared but not responded to posts made about them, so we are still waiting for:

• Upcliff to comment on Lefford
  
  
• Sunglass to answer the points that Upcliff made in defence of himself. From Sunglass's vote it is unclear if Sunglass read Upcliff's post or not, and if he did, why he disagrees with Upcliff's arguments.
  
  
• Sunglass to respond to Upcliff's case on Sunglass
  
  
• Hasty to comment on Norcross's observations on Hasty
  
  
• Hasty to comment on Caron's observations and answer Caron's questions
  
  
• Uller to respond to Caron's case on Uller
  
  
• Inchfield to respond to Hasty's case on Inchfield
  

(Have I missed anything?)

I believe we have about 22 hours left of day 2, hopefully Targ will let us know at the next vote count.

Edit: added bullets and time estimate

[House Tyrell]

Some players have appeared but not responded to posts made about them, so we are still waiting for:

Inchfield to respond to Hasty's case on Inchfield

Have been at work and taking care of familial obligations. Am more than happy to respond to Hasty's case.

This is a case on Inchfield, which I'm making independently from Caron's, which I've only skimmed. I feel like Inchfield has been attacking me for a while and I wanted to formulate my own opinion of him.

I wouldn't characterize it as attacking. You just played a good game of dodging the question through most of day 1, which made me suspicious, whereas at first I was just seeking answers.

This is the first post of his which sticks out to me as being suspicious, in the light of Ambrose being innocent. He has "no read" on Ambrose. He also has a bonus defense of Lefford, for good measure. In his next post, he goes after me and Jast, both of whom I know to be innocent. So Inchfield is already proving himself to have questionable judgment.

I'm assuming you meant in light of Ambrose being guilty. And if you're going to give a link to my post, and then "quote" what I said, at least use an accurate quote. I said I can't get a firm read, and he was worth keeping an eye on because he had up untill that point played it close to the vest. Would you really characterize what I said about Lefford as a defense? My next post, "going after you and Jast", is simply how I play when people make unclarified (Jast's on Ambrose) votes, or make inconsisted or illogical posts (you).

Also doesn't like:

-Lake for focusing too much on Prester

-Sunglass for more tunnel vision with regard to Lake/Upcliff

Am I wrong for finding Lake suspicious?

Has Sunglass proven himself to be anything but obsessed with Upcliff?

"At this early point i'm unwilling to add what could be the catalyst vote to the lynch of either Prester or Ambrose, so I'm leaving it where it is. Good luck." I realize I was the one person who failed to vote for either of the top two suspects, but this just reads to me like, "I don't want you to judge me for my opinion either way, so I'm not going to make one."

I've responded to this several times. There were 4 hours left, and I didn't want to take responsibility for tipping the balance between two people who, as I've said, I felt were innocent, but guilty of poor play.

But then, after a day of not really suspecting Prester, he reopens the door to getting on that mob. And then votes for Prester.

Did I have that door open before? When prior to the post you linked did I give the impression I was suspicious enough of Prester to vote for him? The closest was the post where I asked him if he was trying to back us into a corner by telling us to vote him off if we don't like his play style. And I went back and looked, there was 11 hours between that post and the one where I voted for Prester. Again you're releasing selective information to paint those actions in a poorer light.

I don't like the way he justifies trying to vote for me again just because I'm the odd man out on voting. Profiles don't always work, plus with all the downtime on the board and people's sleep schedules, there's plenty of room for people not to be able to vote with a crowd.

Did I vote for you today? Did I even make a case on you yet? The answer to both questions is no. I did re-affirm that you're one of my top suspects, and that I wasn't sure how your vote remaining on Lefford would effect that fact.

[House Frey]

Post #440

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.

Now, it is known that Sunglass hasn't liked me since the moment I stepped foot into the game (though he isn't the only one.) I can see why he wouldn't like Upcliff (what with Upcliff's case on Sunglass.) But why Inchfield?

So I took a look at those he claimed might be evil in Post 414

Elesham--evil?? Fake symp clues, bad RP, quasi-vig claim, then gets mad. Claims not to have read any role but his own yet knows there are no guns on the safari and there’s no symp, v Prester, vanishes and reappears. Did vote Ambrose when he and Prester were tied at 6. Would a partner really do that? (Esp. if Upcliff is other partner, he was already voting.)

Inchfield--Evil?--didn't like his failure to vote at (original) deadline, very agressive when calling out other people for not contributing but doesn't really seem to have any ideas of his own. Why leave a "preliminary vote" on Prester this morning if you'd rather Norcross was lynched? Don't like. Didn't like him leaving vote on Hasty at original deadline. Made case on H but never really pushed it, so why not vote?

Lake--evil????—first post huge case against Prester, second just to vote Prester, third “bollucks†to me, then another “case†on Prester. Rude too. Not contributing, not wanting to comment on things except Prester. If Up is innocent, then Lake is probably evil.

Norcross--evil?--really didn't like his first post, really don't like how he pops in and out and barely ever comments. Definitely did not like contribution the other night, calling me oh-so-innocent and then posting quick thoughts on 2 other people, nothing more than one sentence saying they "seemed" innocent. Said he liked Ambrose the least but didn't vote since he wasn't around. Did get on lynch though...so if Up is evil, he might look more innocent.

Upcliff--evil--I've gone over all this before.

So why would he mention Inchfield over Elesham or Lake? Then it came to me... in Post 443

This is a case on Inchfield, which I'm making independently from Caron's, which I've only skimmed. I feel like Inchfield has been attacking me for a while and I wanted to formulate my own opinion of him.

This is the first post of his which sticks out to me as being suspicious, in the light of Ambrose being innocent. He has "no read" on Ambrose. He also has a bonus defense of Lefford, for good measure. In his next post, he goes after me and Jast, both of whom I know to be innocent. So Inchfield is already proving himself to have questionable judgment.

Also doesn't like:

-Lake for focusing too much on Prester

-Sunglass for more tunnel vision with regard to Lake/Upcliff

"At this early point i'm unwilling to add what could be the catalyst vote to the lynch of either Prester or Ambrose, so I'm leaving it where it is. Good luck." I realize I was the one person who failed to vote for either of the top two suspects, but this just reads to me like, "I don't want you to judge me for my opinion either way, so I'm not going to make one."

But then, after a day of not really suspecting Prester, he reopens the door to getting on that mob. And then votes for Prester.

I don't like the way he justifies trying to vote for me again just because I'm the odd man out on voting. Profiles don't always work, plus with all the downtime on the board and people's sleep schedules, there's plenty of room for people not to be able to vote with a crowd.

I don't mind opening up my tunnel vision a little. I still have my eye on Lefford, but Inchfield is where my vote is for now.

Hasty hasn't mentioned anything about suspecting Inchfield before this... this is news to me. Is Sunglass calling the shots? It sounds like Sunglass is backing Hasty up in order to make the case on Inchfield sound legit.

Note in Post 414 Sunglass calls Hasty innocent (based on the "Upcliff is a FM because he is vote 4 on a FM" post)

Hasty--innocent?--theory about Up switching from Pres to Amb looks good, seems fairly cautious, really suspects Lefford

And of course Hasty praises Sunglass for killing Ambrose in post 403 - and still claims Lefford as his prime suspect, not Inchfield

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.

Perhaps it is all coincidental. But are Hasty/Sunglass the FM pair we are looking for? Or is one a FM piggy-backing the other in order to appear innocent... or make the other appear guilty with them? My vote is still on Hasty, but Sunglass is now a very close second.

[House Ashford]

I am starting with Elesham...

As Prester pointed out, Elesham changed from Prester to Ambrose in Post 309, swinging the vote from 6-6 to 5-7. Then Elesham and Ambrose proceed to have an arguement for the next 20 posts and 35 minutes (with Sarsfield and Prester thrown in.) The discussion comes down to this...

Ambrose: Why are you voting for me and not Prester.

Elesham: I changed my mind. I still suspect him but I want to lynch him tomorrow.

So the fight could be interpreted as distancing behavior between FM partners, but would it make sense for Elesham to move a tied lych to a +2 lynch killing his partner? I guess not so much, unless the team felt that the Prester lynch was waning and the Ambrose lynch was envitable.

Elesham... since Ambrose came up guilty, do you still want to lynch Prester - meaning that you believe Prester to be Ambrose's Partner?

Now... I will do Hasty next, but considering it took me 2 hours to post this, any my significant other is giving me dirty looks, I'll be doing it later tonight.

[*]Elesham - Norcross asked what you think about Prester now

(Both Elesham and Lake also need to explain their current suspects)

If you re-read what I had posted in response to Ambrose, I never said "I want to lynch Prester tomorrow." I said I wanted him alive today. As I read the progression of his posts, I got a larger and larger innocent vibe from him, and he picked up on and noted a lot of things that I think are signs of him actually being clever amidst the high noise/signal ratio.

His interaction with Ambrose made me really reconsider Prester's motives, and there were two thoughts in my mind. Either Prester was VERY crafty FM exploiting a flailing innocent, or Prester was just picking up on some subtleties of Ambrose's guilt. It's so extremely unlikely for Prester to be FM partners with Ambrose that I am considering him VPI.

The points I want to make regarding things I consider suspect:

Norcross pushed Prester/Ambrose as a lynch-option dichotomy even though others were in the midst of discussion about other options and that Prester/Ambrose was NOT the only option. Norcross presented it as if it were collectively exhaustive.. in math terms, as if they were our ONLY option, in that one MUST occur. In fact, they were not mutually exclusive nor were they our only option. With Norcross' history in mind, I'd say this was NOT simply accidental omission, and I get ticks of ulterior motives from it.

Inchfield criticised Hasty with some very indefensible points. He basically barraged some quotes at Hasty and said "this is suspicious, I think you are probably FM" rather than outlining the WHAT and WHY of the suspiciousness. It, to me, seemed to be attacking Hasty as a person rather than attacking Hasty's arguments, and that's not logical in the slightest.

In addition, I don't like the last few pages of text-walling by Caron.. it seems a bit like he's trying to persuade by overwhelming the rest of us with such a large volume of 'evidence' that the argument would look plausible, would superficially look well-researched, and provide such a large wealth of text to disassemble, that it becomes near indefensible.

[House Frey]

*snip*

It's so extremely unlikely for Prester to be FM partners with Ambrose that I am considering him VPI.

Thank you.

Norcross pushed Prester/Ambrose as a lynch-option dichotomy even though others were in the midst of discussion about other options and that Prester/Ambrose was NOT the only option. Norcross presented it as if it were collectively exhaustive.. in math terms, as if they were our ONLY option, in that one MUST occur. In fact, they were not mutually exclusive nor were they our only option. With Norcross' history in mind, I'd say this was NOT simply accidental omission, and I get ticks of ulterior motives from it.

A reference please? What post is this from? A link to this page or, even better, quoting the post.

[House Tyrell]

Inchfield criticised Hasty with some very indefensible points.

If you're saying I raised intriguing points about his suspicious behavior, yes I did.

He basically barraged some quotes at Hasty and said "this is suspicious, I think you are probably FM" rather than outlining the WHAT and WHY of the suspiciousness.

In other words, I made a case, outlined with quotes, and followed with questions, hopefully requiring him to defend himself? What the fuck are you talking about I didn't outline what and why? Did you even read the case?

It, to me, seemed to be attacking Hasty as a person rather than attacking Hasty's arguments, and that's not logical in the slightest.

I'm not even sure what to say to this. I don't know Hasty as a person. I attacked his posts. Am I missing something, or isn't that how you play Mafia?

[House Targaryen]

House Lake has been modkilled due to inactivity. He will not get flavor.

SPOILER: He was

windshipper and innocent.

It is day 2.

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

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

2 votes for Hasty ( Norcross, Lefford)

1 vote for Upcliff ( Sunglass)

1 vote for Inchfield ( Hasty)

1 vote for Uller ( Caron)

1 vote for Sunglass ( Upcliff)

5 players have not voted: Elesham, Inchfield, Prester, Sarsfield, Uller.

There is about 20 hours remaining in Day 2!

[House Dondarrion]

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.

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.

Note also that the case on Ambrose was at this point: "I thought that of all the cases against Prester, his sounded the less sincere." Obviously a case demanding everyone immediately give their thoughts on it. The rest of that section is more or less accurate once all the loaded language is taken out. I thought Hasty wanting to follow someone who they had a nasty feeling about seemed odd and I also believed Prester's rebuttal was awful.

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:

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

Er, yeah, it's noncommittal. I'm trying to explain why I didn't feel happy about rushing to a judgement here. The disparity in argumentative ability meant that it was hard to tell if Upcliff had some actually unanswerable points or if Prester was merely failing to get his responses out effectively. I thought I'd give it some time and see what happened. So I said I'd try and find something else that I was happier about.

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

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.)

Oh, look. And here I found something I thought was more suspicious. Norcross bending like a willow as the wind changes. I'd made it clear I was intending not to rush to judgement in the Upcliff-Prester debates and was trying to find something I liked more. If that's 'staying aloof', so be it.

At this point, I'm not sure what the hell I'm supposed to be doing as an FM. A vote for Prester (which would be easily justifiable considering his play) would make far more sense. I mean Prester never really answered Upcliff's attacks adequately and I think there would have been far more residual suspicion of Prester rather than 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.

By hedging my bets, I assume you mean explaining that I don't really like the case on Prester or on Ambrose (a position it should be obvious I held for most of the day, seeing as I hadn't really said anything about the Ambrose lynch other than the momentum switch was a little odd with Prester and Upcliff's sudden alliance and also that I didn't really feel happy with the Prester dialogue either), and would have much preferred to see Norcross hang, right?

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

Um, aren't you supposed to be trying to figure that out? I also like the '(apparently)' touch. Feel free to check back and see if I'm ever posting around 11am - 12pm EST.

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:

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:

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).

Let's look at this from my perspective, hmm? You have a suspect (Norcross, as it turns out). You apply a little pressure to that suspect to see what happens. Suddenly, out of the blue, a player who you don't classify as a probable innocent (Prester) suddenly frantically leaps to their defense. Would that increase your suspicion of the second player here just a tiny bit?

It did for me... and that was enough to tip the scales as I had nothing much on Ambrose at all.

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].

Um, see I was referring to this:

ETA: I wrote this before Norcross's or Uller's posts. I do take your point Uller - I don't feel the case on Ambrose is that strong - and I do have Norcross higher up my list, so should the lynch head that direction I would move there.

So, you know... you kind of did say you agreed with me but I understand why you didn't necessarily want to ring that up. Nice to know that Jast agreed with me too though.

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?

Naturally this sort of question is difficult for anyone other than myself and also the FM team to answer with certainty. However we can get somewhere with asking if you (yes you, dear reader) believe Norcross was suspicious? I believe enough people have said they mistrusted Norcross that they can't all be FM, so there must be some basis for it. Given that, I think it's not unreasonable to say that someone who suspects Norcross could easily become more suspicious of a player who is desperately defending them.

So, I sum up the case against Uller:

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

Irrelevant when you consider what the case on Ambrose actually was at the time and what the content of my post was. Overreaching here.

(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.

Not sure at all why the "staying aloof" business is in any way incriminating for me. If I was partnered with Ambrose, I'd have thought I'd want to keep things going on Prester, not leave it alone. My 'distracting' onto Hasty was hardly a concerted effort, more noting something odd. Other people called Hasty on this as well, after I raised it. Norcross I was genuinely suspicious of.

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

Not in any great detail, no. The only comment I made was that I thought the way the mob formed was a little odd, with Prester and Upcliff suddenly allying against him. Really though, I was pretty ambivalent towards both Ambrose's and Prester's cases. Neither seemed much stronger than the other to me right up until Prester started defending Norcross.

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

Prester gave me an opening onto his mob when he leapt frantically to my chief suspect's defense. I don't really see how that couldn't look bad if you suspect Norcross strongly.

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

You never said if you thought this was a sign of evil or not. What's it doing in the summary if you had no conclusions to summarise from it?

(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.

True. I explained why, though and I don't think my reasoning is strained.

Summary:

Large chunks of this case are padding, filler and irrelevancies. The issues that I felt were legitimate, I've answered, explaining my motives at the time.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I'm a little disappointed to see Sunglass is absent from the thread without answering Upcliff's case. Makes it hard to take things forward in that direction. I'll see what else I can find after a short break.

[House Tyrell]

Now, having had time to do a re-read to look for inconsistencies, I have a few questions of my own, beyond those that Upcliff outlined, that I'd like Sunglass to answer.

First, what did you see between this post

Who I'd like to see lynched today

1) Upcliff (mmm, Cliff bars )

2) Elesham, Lake (they're tied)

4) Norcross

5) Hasty

and this post

Hasty--innocent?--theory about Up switching from Pres to Amb looks good, seems fairly cautious, really suspects Lefford

that made you change your mind about Hasty. Was it only his theory about Upcliff? Please be as specific as you can.

My second question is in regards to a response to Sarsfield suggesting Upcliff could be Prester's partner, and probably isn't Sunglass' partner.

He's certainly not my partner. He's plotting to kill me while I sleep. And I highly doubt he's Prester's partner. True, there have been partners who attack each other just because of the CF and WIFOM tricks and such, but...I highly doubt that's the case here. The tone of the thread made it seem very possible that Prester could be lynched, so that would be quite a risk to take on Day One. *shrugs*

Note in particular the reasoning he gives that Upcliff couldn't be Prester's partner. Now read this part of his case on Upcliff.

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

-------> ( 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.

The very same reason he gives for Upcliff not being Prester's partner, he uses in his case for Upcliff being Ambrose's partner. Sunglass, why would you apply that theory to one person and not the other?

[House Tyrell]

Just noticed Lake was modkilled. Can't say I'm pleased, as this has been happening too often lately, but at least I can cross him off my suspect list. It leaves 11 players, and team innocent can still manage to be wrong 3 times and still have a chance.

[House Frey]

Norcross pushed Prester/Ambrose as a lynch-option dichotomy even though others were in the midst of discussion about other options and that Prester/Ambrose was NOT the only option. Norcross presented it as if it were collectively exhaustive.. in math terms, as if they were our ONLY option, in that one MUST occur. In fact, they were not mutually exclusive nor were they our only option. With Norcross' history in mind, I'd say this was NOT simply accidental omission, and I get ticks of ulterior motives from it.

LOL... Absolute and utter bullshit.

I have a search button, and I can use it. Here are the three posts were I mention a Prester or Ambrose choice. If the post you are referring to isn't in one of these three, please point it out to me.

Post 241

This is my quick check in before work. I will not be back in before the day is up. Since the only viable choices are Prester and Ambrose, I will have to lay my vote on Ambrose, as I think Prester is getting lynched for being a poor player rather than a FM.

Post 284

Prester and Ambrose...

This morning when I checked the board there were 2 viable lynches... the two of you. Since I wasn't going to be back before the end of the day, and I knew we needed a lynch, I had to lay a vote. I felt laying a vote for anyone besides one of the two of you would have been pointless. Out of the 2 of you, I think Prester is most likely to be innocent (in other words, I think he is getting the shaft for poor play decisions based on the whole Elesham debacle.) Perhaps I should say, I think that Ambrose is more likely to be a FM. That is why my vote is for Ambrose.

From Inch:

I'll agree, I don't need Prester defending my vote.

However, Inch, there is no guarentee that a lynch would have gone through. And if the lynch hadn't gone through, if we were one vote short at the end of day, I would have been the player without a vote laid anywhere. And I know how that would have looked. Not to mention, I feel that everyone on the innocent's team has an obligation to make sure we have a lynch.

Now Inchfield, are you doing your part for the innocent team? It doesn't appear you are doing much to make sure a lynch goes through. You have one very safe vote on Hasty. I doesn't appear to me that it is doing much good there, so why leave it? Is one of your FM partners on the Prester lynch and the other on the Ambrose? Could it be you are spreading your votes around?

Post 301

It's my morning check in. Nothing much has happened except a little Norcross hate. Ah, well, join the club people.

No we aren't restricted to voting out just Prester and Ambrose... But moving my vote to someone else - say Inchfield - would be pointless.

No, I'll keep my vote on Ambrose.

Clearly the choice between Prester and Ambrose that I am refering to is the choice I will have to make. As I said in Post 241, I wasn't going to be on at end of day. As I further explained in Post 284 I wanted my vote to count. And finally in Post 301, I said we weren't restricted to the two of them. But are you saying that I should have layed my vote on my second choice (at the time) Inchfield?

[sarcasm]

With my poor credibility at that point in the game (?or even where it stands now?) I am sure placing a vote on Inchfield would have started an unstoppable train and gotten him lynched.

[/sarcasm]

I would love to know what my ulterior motive was. I think it's clear that my motive was to lynch the person whom I thought was more likely to be (and turn out WAS) a FM.

So my question now is... Why are you putting words into my mouth? Because by saying I was pushing the idea that Preter and Ambrose are the only two places anyone could place their vote, that is exactly what you are doing. Here I am thinking you are in the free and clear because you are (in my mind at least) probably PI -- based on the fact that if you were Ambrose's partner; it simply doesn't make sense to move your vote to him, taking the vote count from 6-6 to 5-7.

Congratulations, because of your vauge accuasations against me (my so called ulterior motives) I'll have to de-PI you.

[House Corbray]

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.

And I'll respond briefly, as I don't have time to go through you're every point.

1) Yes, I'm experienced. Since you're bringing this up, the alt rules allow me to respond: I have some experience, but it's been ages since I've played. So I'm rusty. And also, I just don't have the time required to play they way I'd like. I thought I could do it, but I just can't, and that makes me sad, as playing this half-assed isn't something that appeals to me. But there you have it.

I'm making my arguments as best I can due to my time constraints. This sometimes means I don't reread the thread for every point; I just go off my memory and impressions. (Like how I thought Prester was the first vote.) I can't craft multiple-posts cases and responses with links and quotes. And I'm not happy about it.

So what you're seeing (as you know damn well), is that my gameplay may not fit with my precieved confidence and ability, as it's greatly constricted by work, school, family, and social life. (And not much of the very last one either, sadly.)

2) I'm not Ambrose's partner.

Now, let my apply both points to you:

1) Obviously, you're an experienced, confident player. So how come you're attacking innocents? You can keep this up for a while, but eventually people will catch on. Saying things like "Oh, you contradict yourself by saying 'Ambrose was probably going to be the lynch' and 'Norcross was a viable lynch' "...come on. Those statements can both be true..."probably" doesn't not mean "certainly" or "only", and "viable" does not mean "absolutely going to die". You can fill your cases with shit like that. Hopefully people will catch on.

2) Your play fits as Ambrose's partner. Especially given point (1). You can and will manipulate the CF. You can and will manipulate people's preceptions of "typical FM behavior" and "typical partner behavior."

Perhaps it is all coincidental. But are Hasty/Sunglass the FM pair we are looking for?

Nope, but Norcross/Upcliff might very well be.

<snip> [What] made you change your mind about Hasty. Was it only his theory about Upcliff? Please be as specific as you can.

Sorry, but I can't be very specific. Hasty started posting more and posting original ideas. I liked his thought process.

The very same reason he gives for Upcliff not being Prester's partner, he uses in his case for Upcliff being Ambrose's partner. Sunglass, why would you apply that theory to one person and not the other?

Because it's different. Upcliff was an active force in trying to shove through a Prester lynch. He kept arguing and arguing for it. Whereas he voted Ambrose, but was just hopping on existing momentum, and not posting 7 page cases on him.

-----------

Also, I have one more thing to say: I'm the tour guide. I'll go dig up my codes in a second.

I tried to kill Upcliff last night. My kill failed, and I've lost it for good. I highly doubt I was guarded by an innocent guard (it would be stupid for an innocent guard to act when there are still multiple FM), and I'll be very pissed off if there's an evil coward, as that highly reduces the efficacy of the vig role, and thus we'd better hae a good guard to balance. So either I was guarded by an evil guard, or Upcliff was healed. Obviously, the healer shouldn't speak up.

I'm claiming now because I don't want to battle through all this stuff when I don't have time, and if it results in my lynch, that just sucks. And if I didn't claim but was nightkilled, some evil bastard could try to claim my role. Also, since I've used my kill, I'm no more than RI. Yeah, it removes the "threat" of a vig, but whatever. Oh, and also I was afraid I might have given away the fact that I was the vig when everyone kept doing all the role spec and discussion of how the vig should be played. That's why I hate that sort of shit--it's extremely hard to talk about the role you have without giving anything away, and refusing to discuss it can also give it away.

Oh, and yes, I'm the one who pointed out that the vig doesn't have to be allinged with the innocents. But I am. And honestly, putting an evil vig in a game of only 14 seems pretty silly to me, but there you have it.

Yeah, I know, what kind of vig uses their kill on Night One, menance to society, blah blah. I did it for several reasons:

1) I was afraid of an evil guard. I thought I'd be least likely to be guarded Night One.

2) I am that sure that Upcliff is guilty. I really, really am. But I couldn't seem to convince anyone of it yesterday, and when people started saying stuff like "If Ambrose is guilty, then I bet Upcliff isn't", I knew it would be an extemely hard battle to fight. And I just don't have the time for it. So I wanted to take him out of the game, and to do it before he led everyone around by their noses.

3) I knew Upcliff would try to draw the heal throughout the game, using various means. I thought he'd be least sucessful Night One.

4) I wanted the situation resolved so we could move on to other things.

I think that's about it--I PMed the mods like 17 times, trying to decide, especially since I thought Night would end while I was still away. (It wasn't me we were waiting on--I'd confirmed my PM at Soph's when the board was still down and it was still Day One. Then I took it back when we got the extensions and sent in a bunch more thoughts. So I may be forgetting some of my reasons.)

Anyway, I'll go dig up my codes (the first one had some problems, since I kept forgetting I was trying to code it). I'm around for a little while, so if anyone else is, I'll answer as best I can.

Oh, and when I'm nightkilled (the healer doesn't need to worry about keeping me safe--I'm just an RI now and I don't have time to play as I'd like, so it's no big loss), please look back over my suspect lists. And watch Upcliff carefully and don't be afraid to lynch him.

Edit: I can't type, and I left out part of my quotes, too.

[House Corbray]

Ok, so the first code is the "I'm the tour guide" code. The first letter of each of my posts (except for the two times I forgot about it) spell out "follow me", since that's what tour guides say:

First,

Ok...

Let's

Look,

Ok...

Who

My,

* exaggerated

And the second code was my (failed) nightkill. First letter of the first word of the first sentence, first letter of the second word of the second sentence, etc:

Upcliff remains my top suspect. And pretty sure that doesn't surprise anyone. http://forum-test.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_tongue.png' alt=':P'> I think Caron is somewhat exhonorated because of the case that wasn't. That seems more like Ambrose was going to try to make a case on him but couldn't actually find anything and so dropped it (something I associate with baddies doing to goodies). I'm not calling him innocent-beyond-any-doubt (that's just me :angel:), but it doesn't seem very likely that they're partners to me.

My internet is still pretty fucked up, so everything is taking a long time, and I have to run. http://forum-test.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_sad.png' alt=':('> I'll try to have more comments for you guys in a bit, especially a case on why I think Upcliff and Ambrose make sense as partners.

Edit: fixing quote tags

[House Clegane]

God damn, after getting absolutely dumped on by work for the last 5 hours, I'm not in good shape to even consider Sunglass' claim. I do have one idea that might inflluence some things, and if it checks out I'll tell you more. If not, it's best that the FM don't really know what I'm doing with this.

[House Tyrell]

Sorry, but I can't be very specific. Hasty started posting more and posting original ideas. I liked his thought process.

I understand time constraints make it hard to play this game, trust me. For reference, only three of his 10 posts occured between those posts: one presenting the Upcliff theory, one expressing his own cluelessness, and one congratulating you on killing Ambrose. So yes, I guess it's mostly his Upcliff theory.

Because it's different. Upcliff was an active force in trying to shove through a Prester lynch. He kept arguing and arguing for it. Whereas he voted Ambrose, but was just hopping on existing momentum, and not posting 7 page cases on him.

And? Let's look at the facts of both votes.

1) We did not, at the time, know whether or not either Ambrose or Prester was guilty.

2) Upcliff was a visible factor in both lynch mobs. The agressor in one, the swing vote in the other.

How is the Prester vote a (paraphrasing) "risk an FM team wouldn't take", but the Ambrose swing vote, that early in the day, the basis for an entire case of Upcliff being evil?

Also, I have one more thing to say: I'm the tour guide. I'll go dig up my codes in a second.

Fantastic. As you say yourself though, that's no indication of innocence. I'm trying to weigh the benefits (to you) of claiming here with only 2 votes on you. If you're innocent, unfortunately it really can't help us PI you. It also removes the threat of the innocent tour guide completely.

If you're an FM-tour guide, you have everything to gain from this declaration. The chance to alleviate a bit of pressure, and it removes the threat of the FM tour guide, because you claim you already used it. If it buys you extra time, you could use that near the end as a coup de grace.

I'm not saying that's a declaration of guilt, I just don't understand the motivation of claiming with rather minimal pressure on you at this time.

<Edit: I'm extremely tired and not sure I expressed any of this post correctly. I'll look at it again after some rest>

[House Tyrell]

<snip> and it removes the threat of the FM tour guide, because you claim you already used it. If it buys you extra time, you could use that near the end as a coup de grace.

Thought about it more..this doesn't really make much sense, as it would bring a hell of a lot of heat your way, depending on when it happened. As I said, I need rest to actually process things.