AGOT Mafia 46.5

[House Dayne]

and Lake, who took a few points and stretched them into a huge "You GUYZ!!! HE'S TEH EVILDOERZZZ" case, both come off pretty bad from my perspective.

Well bollocks on you, laddie.

[House Connington]

I really don't like how you came back, and you were posting...yet you didn't respond to my last post. Just ignored it. That's not going to work with me.

Maybe another vote will convince you that you need to explain yourself better, Prester.

I'll read and answer your big post after this, then make general comments, but....

Why did i say my vote was strong and would take a lot to move? Because it was. Why did I move it? It was clear no-one else agreed with me, so i felt it wasted and decided to remove the little pressure it created until it could be better applied.

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. If you don't like that, by all means vote me off, but ask yourself, is it a sign of an FM, innocent or false sign. I'd say it is something either factor could do, but is riskier with no clear reward for a FM.

[House Connington]

Well, there are 2 things I can say about that. First, that is a fairly suspicious move, IMO. Giving up on an argument that you believe in (and he does clearly believe in it) because it's unpopular? Definitely not the behavior I'd expect from an innocent player. And definitely the type of behavior I'd expect from a FM who was concerned about making too many enemies, and wandering too far beyond the safe 'popular' opinion.

There isn't much here I haven't replied to before, but please explain the part above?

If i clearly beleive in my argument, yet drop it, I'm a FM?

Since when does a FM get to argue for a lynch they beleive in? They are out to hurt team innocent.

If it's a sincere argument i beleive in, as you so eagerly beleive, how COULD I be FM?

I hate to vote on the guy who votes for me, but to join a train in this way despite evidence in your own "lets fluff a few lines into a megapost" suggestin I'm innocent rings bells. So, explain yourself pleaseUpcliff?

[House Connington]

WHOA! HOLD ON STOP THE PRESSES.

Clarify this for me: You would willingly and knowingly lynch an innocent? AN INNOCENT WOULD NEVER EVER WILLINGLY LYNCH AN INNOCENT! ONLY AN FM WOULD WANT TO LYNCH AN INNOCENT! I can write a gigantic post as to why this would be, if you fail to see the obvious reasons why, you foolish man.

My vote is that you're an FM who was trying to get an easy lynch. You goin' down, boy.

Bollocks. If there's no strong baddie candidate, but the strongest so far would also be a liability if innocent, they should go. Any lynch on day 1 beats no lynch, and it's better to lose someone who wouldn't be missed if we are wrong.

As for the vig stuff, I've tried explaining it. If you don't like it, tough. And put words in his mouth by pointing out a huge, blatant claim-clue? Sorry, i forgot that we wait for people to claim things openly, in bright text, here in Mafia. Will you forgive me for the sin of looking beyond what was said outright?

Hey guys, any of you an FM, so we can lynch?

[Piper of Chaos]

"In the morning, there was panic and dismay within the camp. Found underneath the rear tire of one of the trucks was the body of Piper. His neck was completely crushed under the weight of the wheel. If that wasn't enough, all the tires on all the trucks were slashed and out of air.

[House Upcliff]

I re-read the game but there wasn't really much that caught my eye.

As I said I'm normally not suspicious of people who try to attract attention to themselves first thing day one. So game-styles like those of Prester, Elesham, Lake and Caron normally ring innocentish to me.

The mouthy player/leader profile is also something I don't usually associate with being a FM either, so players like Sarsfield, Upcliff and Sunglass would get a pass from me too.

It's the rest of the players whom I'd like to have a look at.

I'll cast a vote on Ambrose for the time being. I thought that of all the cases against Prester, his sounded the less sincere.

[House Dondarrion]

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:

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.

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?

[House Targaryen]

It is day 1.

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

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

3 votes for Prester ( Elesham, Lake, Upcliff)

2 votes for Upcliff ( Sunglass, Prester)

2 votes for Ambrose ( Sarsfield, Jast)

1 vote for Hasty ( Norcross)

1 vote for Sunglass ( Ambrose)

1 vote for Lefford ( Hasty)

4 players have not voted: Caron, Inchfield, Lefford, Uller.

You have 27.5 hours remaining in Day 1!

[House Sunglass]

I'll read and answer your big post after this, then make general comments, but....

Why did i say my vote was strong and would take a lot to move? Because it was. Why did I move it? It was clear no-one else agreed with me, so i felt it wasted and decided to remove the little pressure it created until it could be better applied.

So you stand by your original claim that your vote was strong, and that it would require a lot to move it? In spite of the fact that you did move it less than a page later? In spite of the fact that no new information had come out to undermine your stated reasons for casting the vote? In spite of the fact that you are now once again admitting that you moved the vote because it was unpopular (an extremely weak reason, not a strong one)?

You can't even go one paragraph without contradicting yourself.

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. If you don't like that, by all means vote me off, but ask yourself, is it a sign of an FM, innocent or false sign. I'd say it is something either factor could do, but is riskier with no clear reward for a FM.

Nice cop-out answer. You don't want to explain yourself because you feel your actions are more effective when shrouded in mystery. Somebody cue the spooky music and flickering lights.

Sorry Prester, mafia doesn't work like that. We are well past the point where your original attack on Elesham could be 'effective'. If you want to get him lynched, fine, go for it....but it's going to take more than the original case you posted. So you should feel quite free to explain yourself. Your case, your vote removal, everything you've been questioned about.

More importantly, the key point here, which you have apparently failed to understand, is that the focus has shifted...onto you. Your actions and statements have come into question. You are a suspect. You no longer have the luxury of saying 'my methods are more effective when I don't reveal them' because your methods are whats at issue here.

I seriously can't believe that a suspect in a game of mafia just provided the defense - "I'm not going to answer your questions because I feel my actions are more effective if not overly analyzed."

There isn't much here I haven't replied to before, but please explain the part above?

If i clearly beleive in my argument, yet drop it, I'm a FM?

Since when does a FM get to argue for a lynch they beleive in? They are out to hurt team innocent.

If it's a sincere argument i beleive in, as you so eagerly beleive, how COULD I be FM?

I hate to vote on the guy who votes for me, but to join a train in this way despite evidence in your own "lets fluff a few lines into a megapost" suggestin I'm innocent rings bells. So, explain yourself pleaseUpcliff?

You refuse to answer my questions, yet you want to turn things around and demand that I explain myself? What the fuck.

Anyway....yes, if you push an argument, and then back off when it's clear that the argument is unpopular, you are displaying tendencies that I associate with the FM.

The statement 'he clearly does believe in his argument' is equivalent to 'if he's FM, he's clearly chosen to pretend that he believes in his argument'. Do you seriously want me to clarify that somebody could be faking it every time I suspect a person of being evil? It's kind of an inherent, continuously implied element of any argument against you.

Whether or not you truly believe the argument is irrelevant. The point is that you chose to convey to the rest of the group the idea that you truly believe the argument. If you want me to delve into that depth of exposition every time I suspect somebody of faking something in this game....well, my already somewhat lengthy posts are going to get even longer.

More importantly, your most recent answer included this statement -

There isn't much here I haven't replied to before

That is certainly not true. There was definitely more for you to explain. You've just chosen to ignore it (yet again).

[House Connington]

So you stand by your original claim that your vote was strong, and that it would require a lot to move it? In spite of the fact that you did move it less than a page later? In spite of the fact that no new information had come out to undermine your stated reasons for casting the vote? In spite of the fact that you are now once again admitting that you moved the vote because it was unpopular (an extremely weak reason, not a strong one)?

You can't even go one paragraph without contradicting yourself.

Nice cop-out answer. You don't want to explain yourself because you feel your actions are more effective when shrouded in mystery. Somebody cue the spooky music and flickering lights.

Sorry Prester, mafia doesn't work like that. We are well past the point where your original attack on Elesham could be 'effective'. If you want to get him lynched, fine, go for it....but it's going to take more than the original case you posted. So you should feel quite free to explain yourself. Your case, your vote removal, everything you've been questioned about.

More importantly, the key point here, which you have apparently failed to understand, is that the focus has shifted...onto you. Your actions and statements have come into question. You are a suspect. You no longer have the luxury of saying 'my methods are more effective when I don't reveal them' because your methods are whats at issue here.

I seriously can't believe that a suspect in a game of mafia just provided the defense - "I'm not going to answer your questions because I feel my actions are more effective if not overly analyzed."

You refuse to answer my questions, yet you want to turn things around and demand that I explain myself? What the fuck.

Anyway....yes, if you push an argument, and then back off when it's clear that the argument is unpopular, you are displaying tendencies that I associate with the FM.

The statement 'he clearly does believe in his argument' is equivalent to 'if he's FM, he's clearly chosen to pretend that he believes in his argument'. Do you seriously want me to clarify that somebody could be faking it every time I suspect a person of being evil? It's kind of an inherent, continuously implied element of any argument against you.

Whether or not you truly believe the argument is irrelevant. The point is that you chose to convey to the rest of the group the idea that you truly believe the argument. If you want me to delve into that depth of exposition every time I suspect somebody of faking something in this game....well, my already somewhat lengthy posts are going to get even longer.

More importantly, your most recent answer included this statement -

That is certainly not true. There was definitely more for you to explain. You've just chosen to ignore it (yet again).

Yes, i voted for someone as they appeared to reak of guilt. Yes, i was silly claiming "It'll take alot for me to move it", that was a mistake.

My point about beleiving in the argument is you claimed that the ONLy way i'd drop an argument i beleived in is if i was an FM. That's where i'm coming from, not the whole "well you could be faking it" line...

If I was a FM, i can't drop an argument i really beleive in. I can pretend to really beleive in something then drop it,m but even that would be a stupid move. As an Innocent, however, i have a duty to try to lynch someone who is guilty. If my vote is going to be wasted somewhere, why not withdraw it and the associated pressure? Why not then start using it more as a proding tool until we get closer to the end of the day?

It seems you've either convinced yourself that I'm guilty (and are innocent), convinced yourself I'm an easy target (and are guilty), or convinced yourself I'm dangerous (and are guilty). I'm not sure how you expect me to change your mind going over the same crap over and over again. I'm not sure what you're attempting to get out of it. If you think I'm guilty, vote me off. If you think I'm dangerous (and happen to be an FM) then thank you. Feel free to night kill me. If you think i'm an easy target, then i guess i should be offended, but all the same you may have a point. I have been very vocal, and a vocal day one makes one a target more often than not.

Either way, I'm happy to answer new questions on new issues, but i refuse to go back over the same stuff over and over. Don't like it, vote me off.

[House Tyrell]

As much as I hate to jump between a hyena and a lion, a few things stand out in this back and forth.

I hate to vote on the guy who votes for me, but to join a train in this way despite evidence in your own "lets fluff a few lines into a megapost" suggestin I'm innocent rings bells. So, explain yourself pleaseUpcliff?

This whole mess started because people saw you as being too eager/free with your votes, and here you are putting a weakly backed second lynch vote on Upcliff. I'm not ready to jump on any lynch trains, especially so early in day 1, but you're drawing a lot of attention your way with this playstyle. The thing that bothers me is that, unless you're new, you had to see it coming.

Either way, I'm happy to answer new questions on new issues, but i refuse to go back over the same stuff over and over. Don't like it, vote me off.

Are you trying to back him, and everyone else, into a corner? If you are innocent, why are you suggesting we lynch you? I can't comprehend what's been going through your head so far. Sloppy FM? Angry Innocent? I can't think of a single role that would justify this.

I'm going to re-read and ignore the two of you, to see if there's attention that should be focused elsewhere.

[House Wythers]

I re-read the game but there wasn't really much that caught my eye.

As I said I'm normally not suspicious of people who try to attract attention to themselves first thing day one. So game-styles like those of Prester, Elesham, Lake and Caron normally ring innocentish to me.

The mouthy player/leader profile is also something I don't usually associate with being a FM either, so players like Sarsfield, Upcliff and Sunglass would get a pass from me too.

It's the rest of the players whom I'd like to have a look at.

I'll cast a vote on Ambrose for the time being. I thought that of all the cases against Prester, his sounded the less sincere.

Please note how I didn't actually vote Prester. But think what you must, I do find Presters actions suspicious. Prester may be aggressive, but I think his aggression is coming from the wrong place. There is somewhat an emotional appeal in his last posts, maybe it's my own opinion, but I think some of that so called "anger" is conceived.

He makes a point about a vocal leader drawing attention on day one. He's right in one sense, they do draw attention. However, he forgets that vocal leaders can draw as much positive attention with their words as negative attention. He aggressively attacked a player for weak reasoning early, and in my eyes, he's been backpedaling waiting for another opportunity.

[House Wythers]

If I was a FM, i can't drop an argument i really beleive in. I can pretend to really beleive in something then drop it,m but even that would be a stupid move. As an Innocent, however, i have a duty to try to lynch someone who is guilty. If my vote is going to be wasted somewhere, why not withdraw it and the associated pressure? Why not then start using it more as a proding tool until we get closer to the end of the day?

This is completely WIFOM. If you were FM you "couldn't" drop an argument? So your argument that a FM would be stupid to drop an ineffective argument?

That's stupidity beyond comprehension.

[House Clegane]

I'm sorry, this is just a check-in post, since I have to be off to work in a few minutes. Nothing Prester said in his posts really adressed my concernes about him, so he remains my top suspect. I'm not going to say any more until I can look through things in detail.

[House Sunglass]

My point about beleiving in the argument is you claimed that the ONLy way i'd drop an argument i beleived in is if i was an FM. That's where i'm coming from, not the whole "well you could be faking it" line...

Huh? When did I say that? Here's the exact quote from my post -

Definitely not the behavior I'd expect from an innocent player. And definitely the type of behavior I'd expect from a FM who was concerned about making too many enemies, and wandering too far beyond the safe 'popular' opinion.

There's a huge difference between my statement that it's the type of behavior I'd expect from a FM and not an innocent player, and your claim that I said it's behavior that could only come from a FM.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the definition of the word 'expect'? It means 'to regard as likely to happen'. Not 'to regard as certain to happen'. There is a significant difference.

Point being - I've never said that you are definitely FM. I've said that you are displaying FM-like tendencies. Things are rarely 100% certain in this game, especially as early as day 1, and I would never claim otherwise. What I'm doing is looking for behavior that is inconsistent and that fits with the type of behavior I associate with the FM. That's all. So stop misrepresenting my position.

If I was a FM, i can't drop an argument i really beleive in. I can pretend to really beleive in something then drop it,m but even that would be a stupid move.

You've completely lost me here.

FM fall back from their previously held positions all the time. They make an argument, unexpectedly discover that most people disagree with their argument and that they've put forward an unpopular opinion, and then attempt to make a quiet retreat. FM usually don't like being in the spotlight. They usually don't like to be at the center of confrontation. Especially early in the game, and especially if they are inexperienced or lack confidence in their abilities.

So your claim that a FM wouldn't drop an argument that he had previously put forward is completely and utterly wrong.

As an Innocent, however, i have a duty to try to lynch someone who is guilty. If my vote is going to be wasted somewhere, why not withdraw it and the associated pressure? Why not then start using it more as a proding tool until we get closer to the end of the day?

Two problems here.

1) You claimed that you thought Elesham was suspicious, right? If you really believed that, and you really believe that you have a duty to try to lynch someone who is guilty, then why wouldn't you stick with your case against him?

Are you now saying that you didn't think Elesham was suspicious? And that you moved your vote off of him because you felt you would be more likely to vote for an evil player by voting for somebody other than Elesham?

2) This speaks to the question I asked earlier, which you have continuously refused to answer. You did not withdraw the vote and subsequently use it to prod anybody else. You kept your vote off of everybody. You made no use of it at that time.

And if you are arguing that you withdrew it so you'd be free to use it to place pressure on people at a later time, then I have to ask (once again) - why not just leave it on Elesham until you were ready to move your vote elsewhere? You could have moved it off of him whenever you wanted to. There's no barrier to moving your vote from one player to another. You knew this, because you 'removed vote' and then 'voted for Elesham' in the same post earlier in the game.

If you really believed in your case against Elesham, then why go through the motions of removing your vote from him before you had managed to find another suspicious player to vote for? Why abandon your case so quickly, when you didn't have any other viable alternative at the time? Why not, at the very least, leave the vote out there and hope that somebody else (perhaps somebody who hadn't posted on the subject yet) shows up and agrees with you?

It seems you've either convinced yourself that I'm guilty (and are innocent), convinced yourself I'm an easy target (and are guilty), or convinced yourself I'm dangerous (and are guilty). I'm not sure how you expect me to change your mind going over the same crap over and over again. I'm not sure what you're attempting to get out of it. If you think I'm guilty, vote me off.

Again, I haven't convinced myself of anything yet. It's the middle of day 1 - way too early for anybody to be certain of anybody else's guilt or innocence. What I am doing is what you claimed you wanted to do. It's what everyone else here claims is their goal on day 1. I'm applying some real pressure. I'm refusing to let you get away with inconsistent answers and clumsy attempts to avoid legitimate, important questions. I have never said that we need to lynch you today. I have repeatedly said that you need to offer clear, logical, understandable explanations for your behavior.

[House Tyrell]

Done with my first re-read. Despite my intentions, I did at first focus on the people who lead the Prester hate (Lefford, Ambrose, Upcliff).

Upcliff's arguments are well laid out thus far, and he backed it up with a vote. Not much to argue with, unless he becomes tunneled in on pushing Prester.

I can't get a firm read one way or the other on Ambrose yet. Disagreed with Prester, but apparently not suspicious enough to cast a vote. Worth keeping an eye on, but has been playing it close to the vest so far.

Lefford... Well, Lefford engaged in some role speculation, and got into a small argument with Hasty about it. Has played very loosely and ungaurded, being free with his opinions. If I suspected him more, I'd be able to put together a case on him, but it would be a token case and I wouldn't really believe in it. Not going to let him slip under the radar, but he's vocal enough that I don't think that will happen.

Going to do a second re-read now and focus on the others, like I intended to the first time.

[House Sunglass]

Done with my first re-read. Despite my intentions, I did at first focus on the people who lead the Prester hate (Lefford, Ambrose, Upcliff).

What are your thoughts on Lake? He made a fairly long post about Prester, and voted for him, but escaped your list of people posting against Prester. Any reason why?

[House Connington]

Huh? When did I say that? Here's the exact quote from my post -

There's a huge difference between my statement that it's the type of behavior I'd expect from a FM and not an innocent player, and your claim that I said it's behavior that could only come from a FM.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the definition of the word 'expect'? It means 'to regard as likely to happen'. Not 'to regard as certain to happen'. There is a significant difference.

Point being - I've never said that you are definitely FM. I've said that you are displaying FM-like tendencies. Things are rarely 100% certain in this game, especially as early as day 1, and I would never claim otherwise. What I'm doing is looking for behavior that is inconsistent and that fits with the type of behavior I associate with the FM. That's all. So stop misrepresenting my position.

Fair enough, my bad. I woke up in pain after doing something stupid in real life, and maybe that clouded my reading a bit.

You've completely lost me here.

FM fall back from their previously held positions all the time. They make an argument, unexpectedly discover that most people disagree with their argument and that they've put forward an unpopular opinion, and then attempt to make a quiet retreat. FM usually don't like being in the spotlight. They usually don't like to be at the center of confrontation. Especially early in the game, and especially if they are inexperienced or lack confidence in their abilities.

So your claim that a FM wouldn't drop an argument that he had previously put forward is completely and utterly wrong.

Two problems here.

1) You claimed that you thought Elesham was suspicious, right? If you really believed that, and you really believe that you have a duty to try to lynch someone who is guilty, then why wouldn't you stick with your case against him?

Are you now saying that you didn't think Elesham was suspicious? And that you moved your vote off of him because you felt you would be more likely to vote for an evil player by voting for somebody other than Elesham?

2) This speaks to the question I asked earlier, which you have continuously refused to answer. You did not withdraw the vote and subsequently use it to prod anybody else. You kept your vote off of everybody. You made no use of it at that time.

And if you are arguing that you withdrew it so you'd be free to use it to place pressure on people at a later time, then I have to ask (once again) - why not just leave it on Elesham until you were ready to move your vote elsewhere? You could have moved it off of him whenever you wanted to. There's no barrier to moving your vote from one player to another. You knew this, because you 'removed vote' and then 'voted for Elesham' in the same post earlier in the game.

If you really believed in your case against Elesham, then why go through the motions of removing your vote from him before you had managed to find another suspicious player to vote for? Why abandon your case so quickly, when you didn't have any other viable alternative at the time? Why not, at the very least, leave the vote out there and hope that somebody else (perhaps somebody who hadn't posted on the subject yet) shows up and agrees with you?

Again, I haven't convinced myself of anything yet. It's the middle of day 1 - way too early for anybody to be certain of anybody else's guilt or innocence. What I am doing is what you claimed you wanted to do. It's what everyone else here claims is their goal on day 1. I'm applying some real pressure. I'm refusing to let you get away with inconsistent answers and clumsy attempts to avoid legitimate, important questions. I have never said that we need to lynch you today. I have repeatedly said that you need to offer clear, logical, understandable explanations for your behavior.

Okay, here's what I'll do. In this post I'll only address the removing vote rather than keeping it on issue. In a further post in a little while (I'll guess an hour, but it may be a little more or less depending on some real life things) I'll go back over the rest of the issue and give a single, definitive list of exactly why i did everything i've done in the Elesham affair, concluding it with my current thoughts on the issue.

The reason I removed my vote is that i personally feel that if i'm not actively involved in a potential lynch, a vote should only be up as long as it's maintaining pressure. Elesham was pretty much cleared by everyone else, and i realised that if he is guilty, I'll have to look for a better case on him before leading a lynch mob. Therefore, i wasn't actively involved in a potential lynch any more. Equally, he seemed pretty pissed off by the whole thing, but stuck with his story mostly, and generally seemed to shut up shop. that's the oposit effect to what I'd want, we want pressure that opens up, not closes down. Hense, the vote wasn't putting pressure on.

As much as I know it'll come back to bite me in the arse later, I'm happy to remove vote on you at the moment, as you have now opened up on the issue and make it clear why you're unhappy with me. It goes against my nature, but sure, I'll open up back.

[House Tyrell]

Back again. Two other people caught my eye, those two being Jast and Hasty.

Jast mainly for his last post

I re-read the game but there wasn't really much that caught my eye.

As I said I'm normally not suspicious of people who try to attract attention to themselves first thing day one. So game-styles like those of Prester, Elesham, Lake and Caron normally ring innocentish to me.

The mouthy player/leader profile is also something I don't usually associate with being a FM either, so players like Sarsfield, Upcliff and Sunglass would get a pass from me too.

It's the rest of the players whom I'd like to have a look at.

I'll cast a vote on Ambrose for the time being. I thought that of all the cases against Prester, his sounded the less sincere.

I generally agree with his take on day one attention grabbers, up to a point. But I woulnd't eliminate half the suspects just because they were active on day 1. And the vote on Ambrose I don't buy. Ambrose disagreed with Prester. He never voted for Prester, let alone made a case on him. I'm not sure I understand the motivation behind this post-and-vote, and it rings a bit of a token contribution.

As for Hasty...well, he certainly has played true to his name. He engaged in a little exchange with Prestor, normal day 1 verbal jabbery, and quickly moved on to this...

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

A very hasty (get it?) vote on Lefford because of role-speculation? Leffords post wasn't completely useless, he did remind us that we can choose a lynch free day if it would help at some point. While I agree Lefford may have been space filling, up to that point, most of day 1 was space filling garbage anyway.

Hasty's only other post, however, reeks of inconsitency.

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:

You are tempted to vote someone that you don't fully suspect, because you DO suspect someone else? I'm interpreting this as you saying you want to kill Prester to see if he's innocent, so you can then go after Upcliff. I'm basing this off the only two options that you presented:

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

This one is pretty obvious. There are a lot of inconsistencies in Prester's posting, as Upcliff's case clearly, and in your own words, logically, points out.

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?

Your second option is so incredibly contrived I don't know where to start. You're assuming that if Prester is innocent, the only possible explanation for Upcliff calling him out on his behavior is that Upcliff is evil? This is as clear a set-up as I've ever seen, and a tactic that reeks of FM behavior to me.

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.

Leaving your options open here. Waiting to see if the Prester case gains steam so you can hop on, and planting the seeds of a set-up on Upcliff? Hasty to vote one minute, wishy-washy the next. I'd like to hear an explanation.

[House Tyrell]

What are your thoughts on Lake? He made a fairly long post about Prester, and voted for him, but escaped your list of people posting against Prester. Any reason why?

He reads to me a lot like your case did, except he presented it in a fashion that drew some critisicm. I really was trying to keep my re-read off of Prester and off of you. Ambrose and Lefford were on my list because they were posting right before I did my re-read, and I focused on them first (Just happened that they were involved in the Prester heat).