AGOT Mafia 46.5

[House Connington]

Hello Comrades..

I am Elesham, I from Russia. I come Africa for hunt large animal, kill ..how you say.. rye-nose-rus with large gun. Brochure say no kill animal, but kill animal in Elesham blood. Elesham see we have bad mans in safari. Elesham look foward killing bad mans with hands or large gun.

Elesham sym..sym..sim-puh-thighs bad mans upsetness, Elesham no bad man. Elesham want kill animal, not kill mans. Elesham want kill bad mans, then finish safari. Elesham lose large gun in airplane securety anyway.

This is the one that started it all. I saw a killer, symp and merc claim in there. I wasn't sure if we had a symp, so kept quiet on it, instead pushing the killer/merc reveal.

Remove Vote

Vote Elsham

Seriously. You're either stupid, an FM trying to seem too stupid to be an FM, or roled, but the worst at coding vigilante clues in the world.

So we either lose an innocent idiot, an FM, or an idiot innocent with the ability to then kill another innocent by mistake. It'll take a lot to make me move this vote.

Now here i remove my joke vote from the pre-game (as i saw that period), and stuckl the vote on Elsham. While it was silly to include the final line, i stand by the fact that I, personally, would rather vote off someone equally likely to be stupid and innocent or guilty than someone equally likely to be non-stupid and innocent or guilty. Unless someone becomes very suspicious, Elsham will always be my primary choice to go. If i'm rolling a dice anyway, may aswell choose the person we'll miss least.

I count a symp clue and a vigilante clue in one post, neither disguised. It's hard to change my mind when something screams "lynch me" that loudly.

I stand by my theory that he is either an FM, a symp or a vigilante. All three are dangerous to us, so I'd rather not have to worry about him.

This one I've inclided just to show that symp was still in my reasoning long before we were shown to have no symp. Just wanted to highlight it.

After this there'ws plenty of back and forward on the whole vig thing. Here's one where I've already made it very clear, I don't like them in general. If i beleive we have someoen who#'s either guilty or a stupid vig, I'd happily see them go.

During this time, we have plenty of people making it clear they aren't taking elesham's "mistake" as proof of guilt, and it's clear that while the pressure's on him, all he'll do is clamp down tight and give no new information we can use against him. Then, of course, we get the news that there is defiantely no symp. 100%.

Okay, in that case 1/3rd of my argument is down. I'm willing to remove vote, but not remove suspicion. I'm willing to go with the idea that ANY vig is better than no vig, and equally like the idea that if nothing else, he sort of serves as a meat shield, incase the FMs agree with me that he made a vig clue, but disagree with me as to the value of a vig :-p

So see, at this point i've gone from voting him in an attempt to have him lynched, to seeing that there's no way he's either goign to be lynched or even give us cause to lynch while votes sit on him. When i voted on, there was a good reason. When i voted off, half that reason had been dispelled, and to add to that the vote now carried no benefits, but did carry a clear drawback, it was poreventing him from opening up (and possibly slipping up again).

So, i decided to remove it.

Do i think he's guilty? Not as much as when i put the vote up, but still more than i suspect anyone else.

Why aren't i still voting for him then? Because as long as my vote sits on him, I don't expect him to open up and let us see who and what he really is.

Will i vote on him if there's a chance of having him lynched? Yes, as long as no-one overtakes him on my "guilty list".

Does me voting for someone in the meantime mean they replaced him? No. We have more than one FM here, and while he's my favourite, I'll still happily vote in either an attempt to get more information or an attempt to remove another FM from the game.

If i could go back in time and play this differently, would I? Yes. I wouldn't have claimed i wouldn;'t be removing my vote. That was silly. Would i have voted for him though? Yes. Would i ahve removed the vote still? Yes.

[House Wythers]

This is the one that started it all. I saw a killer, symp and merc claim in there. I wasn't sure if we had a symp, so kept quiet on it, instead pushing the killer/merc reveal.

Again, not seeing the idea of why a symp would claim a symp, that doesn't make any motherfucking sense. No reason for a symp to openly, hell even hide breadcrumbs of being a symp.

Now here i remove my joke vote from the pre-game (as i saw that period), and stuckl the vote on Elsham. While it was silly to include the final line, i stand by the fact that I, personally, would rather vote off someone equally likely to be stupid and innocent or guilty than someone equally likely to be non-stupid and innocent or guilty. Unless someone becomes very suspicious, Elsham will always be my primary choice to go. If i'm rolling a dice anyway, may aswell choose the person we'll miss least.

And here is a problem I have with this. Ok, if it gets to the end of the deadline, fine. I can understand that I guess. But this came in what, the first 12 hours of the deadline? I mean, the game was barely out of jokevoting. You made a point at that time that it would take a damn lot to change your vote. And regardless of your comment that you shouldn't have included the last line, you did.

The game was barely started at this point. You took a completely rock hard stand against a player for what I felt was dumb reasons. Now, dumb != FM. However, the comments you've made in your defense is a little bit worrying. You've jumped your vote onto a different person for what I felt was a "oh god, you came up with a huge post against me, you must be FM" vote. You attached yourself to another case that directly benefited you, and I don't like that.

This one I've inclided just to show that symp was still in my reasoning long before we were shown to have no symp. Just wanted to highlight it.

After this there'ws plenty of back and forward on the whole vig thing. Here's one where I've already made it very clear, I don't like them in general. If i beleive we have someoen who#'s either guilty or a stupid vig, I'd happily see them go.

During this time, we have plenty of people making it clear they aren't taking elesham's "mistake" as proof of guilt, and it's clear that while the pressure's on him, all he'll do is clamp down tight and give no new information we can use against him. Then, of course, we get the news that there is defiantely no symp. 100%.

Ok, the last comment could be true, and it makes sense. However, since when does pressure on someone make them talk LESS? I mean, every innocent has to defend themselves against accusations, even if the accusations are asinine. An innocent's only real truth is that he knows he's innocent. Everything else are possible truths. To say that less pressure will make him talk more seems counterproductive to me. You would have a point if you were saying that taking a vote off of him would make him talk more about other people, but you clearly say "no information we can use against him". With no pressure on him, he has no reason to talk about himself.

So see, at this point i've gone from voting him in an attempt to have him lynched, to seeing that there's no way he's either goign to be lynched or even give us cause to lynch while votes sit on him. When i voted on, there was a good reason. When i voted off, half that reason had been dispelled, and to add to that the vote now carried no benefits, but did carry a clear drawback, it was poreventing him from opening up (and possibly slipping up again).

So, i decided to remove it.

Good reason is in the eye of the beholder. But fine, you felt it was a good reason. Understandable, but I'm not sure if that was truly the reason. You unvoting knowing that he wasn't going to get lynched at time, I can buy that. That doesn't not say anything about your own alignment.

Do i think he's guilty? Not as much as when i put the vote up, but still more than i suspect anyone else.

Why aren't i still voting for him then? Because as long as my vote sits on him, I don't expect him to open up and let us see who and what he really is.

Will i vote on him if there's a chance of having him lynched? Yes, as long as no-one overtakes him on my "guilty list".

Does me voting for someone in the meantime mean they replaced him? No. We have more than one FM here, and while he's my favourite, I'll still happily vote in either an attempt to get more information or an attempt to remove another FM from the game.

If i could go back in time and play this differently, would I? Yes. I wouldn't have claimed i wouldn;'t be removing my vote. That was silly. Would i have voted for him though? Yes. Would i ahve removed the vote still? Yes.

The only thing that's making me pause about voting you is that you are very dedicated to your stance, even if I think it's stupid. You are willing to deal with the pressure that comes from your stance, and I'm unsure that an FM would do that this early in the game. With that said, you did dig a hole with your statements, and completely backpedalling on that would probably have attracted more attention.

Also, The last part about going back in time is over the top in my opinion, but that's my own opinion.

Going to do a quick re-read to see if I see anything that I missed the first time around.

[House Tyrell]

Since there's a bunch of lurkers, I'll at least respond a bit to what was said here.

This is the one that started it all. I saw a killer, symp and merc claim in there. I wasn't sure if we had a symp, so kept quiet on it, instead pushing the killer/merc reveal.

Why on earth would anyone make a killer claim? I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion. If it was a poor rp'd vig claim, it's pretty unhelpful to point it out.

After this there'ws plenty of back and forward on the whole vig thing. Here's one where I've already made it very clear, I don't like them in general. If i beleive we have someoen who#'s either guilty or a stupid vig, I'd happily see them go.

The only real reason to believe he could be guilty is if you KNOW he can't be the vig, and you are certain his rp was a vig clue planted for later.

Do i think he's guilty? Not as much as when i put the vote up, but still more than i suspect anyone else.

Why aren't i still voting for him then? Because as long as my vote sits on him, I don't expect him to open up and let us see who and what he really is.

Will i vote on him if there's a chance of having him lynched? Yes, as long as no-one overtakes him on my "guilty list".

Does me voting for someone in the meantime mean they replaced him? No. We have more than one FM here, and while he's my favourite, I'll still happily vote in either an attempt to get more information or an attempt to remove another FM from the game.

I always thought votes were intended to pressure people to open up and get more information. Kind of like what's been going on with you. Do you have any other reason for suspecting his guilt than his RP and possible vig clue?

[House Corbray]

Ok...

Did you actually read the points I raised against Prester? I don't see them addressed in your post.

Yes, I did. The only shit I don't read is RP.

*snip*

He stated that 'it would take a lot to get him to remove his vote'.

It was pointed out that Elesham could not be a symp, as a result of the rules.

Prester then removed his vote on Elesham. The vote removal begs the question - what caused him to remove his vote? What qualified as the 'a lot' necessary to get him to take his vote off of Elesham?

*snip*

So the evidence showing that Elesham couldn't be a symp shouldn't have had any impact on whether or not Prester would remove his vote.

Sorry, but I guess I think that's "a lot". Maybe he didn't say in his list of possibilities that he was a symp, but he sure was yelling at him for making symp clues. Finding out that there's no symp really changes how you read the game. (I know, because I thought there was no symp and was about to yell at everyone for all the "House" symp-like-clues on Page One when it occured to me that the role lisyt was somewhat vague and there might be a symp, which caused me to reread it all and PM the mod, who told me no, there was no symp, so I decided to not say anything about it at all, and just let people fake-symp all they wanted, so long as they didn't involve me. See?)

Also, frankly, I don't find saying it'll take a lot to move a vote and then moving it suspicious, especially so early in the game. I've certainly changed my mind about things that I really believed in. *shrug*

And I guess I'm biased since I thought (and still think) that Elesham's behavior was extremely suspicious. Lots of people voted him, and lots of people unvoted him. You're obssessed with the guy who started the voting and was most vocal about it. I find the "yeah, me too" crowd more suspicious, personally.

And I still think your attack is opportunistic, especially since you didn't vote till Lake did, and then right after Lake did, claiming you wanted to give Prester more pressure, when he hadn't even replied in the thread yet.

Moving on...

2) When pressed, he stated that he removed his vote because his argument wasn't popular. That does not qualify as the 'a lot' that was supposedly necessary to get him to remove his vote. Also, it is behavior consistent with FM, not innocents.

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.

To you it's indicative of an FM not wanting to make enemies. (Then why make the loud vote in the first place?) To me, it's indicative of someone getting yelled at by a bunch of people and deciding to back off and try to be more productive elsewhere. When I was reading the thread, I felt like it was going to cross into all sorts of personal insults and such, and I was frankly glad to see the issue dropped.

But I don't think there was anything "suspicious" in the way Prester dropped it.

3) He stated that he removed his vote so he would be free to use it as necessary....which makes absolutely zero sense.

So you'd rather he just flung it on someone else? I mean, granted, that's my style. But some people feel like when they vote someone, they're committed to them. (Like, it would take "a lot" to get them to move their vote.) I think it's lame when people aren't currently voting someone, and that it's poor play, but I don't think it's suspicious.

I think his statement, which you also quoted, "it's better to have a vote I can use where necisary than one stuck on a one vote person." shows that he has a weird view of votes. Maybe he's not a Westeros regular. *shrugs*

I'm somewhat bothered by your inability to see the arguments I'm laying out here, Sunglass. They are extremely logical, and fairly easy to understand. You're defending Prester when he has clearly been inconsistent in his statements, has avoided answering the legitimate questions asked of him, and has backed away from confrontation. He looks suspicious, and he should at least be compelled to provide better explanations before people are willing to jump to his defense. Yet you are already on his side of the issue, in spite of the points I've raised against him. Why?

Because I don't like your case against him, did think his original vote of Elesham was a good one, understand why he unvoted, and see the pile-on as a bunch of school kids circling the unpopular kid, basically. I get that you and Lake have huge trumped up cases, but I don't find there to be much valid substance in them.

That said, he's not doing a very good job of defending himself. I'm not going to be a part of his lynch (unless it's one of those annoying "we have to lynch someone and only have an hour left and he's our only option" situations, in which case I'd do it, since I'm not that convinced of his innocence to forego a CF on Day One), and I still think you and Lake look worse than he did, but I'm done defending his actions.

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: *snip*

K then, you're tempted to vote Prester over Upcliff because....? Remind me to keep an eye on you, especially since you've been gendered.

As soon as I get time, I'm also going to reread, with an eye on the people who are just hanging out in the background.

EDIT: Also, I have very slow computer access right now, so it took me ages to get this post to go through. I see a bunch of people have posted in the mean-time.

*sigh*...*reads*

[House Connington]

I always thought votes were intended to pressure people to open up and get more information. Kind of like what's been going on with you. Do you have any other reason for suspecting his guilt than his RP and possible vig clue?

Yes, they are. Thats why i removed it, as it was having the oposit effect. He didn't open up under pressure, but rather closed up, so i felt it was counter productive to have a vote on him.

And other reasons? So far, only the fact that he closed up. Then again, that's more likely to be playstyle than a sign of guilt. Of course, it's hard to have another reason, seeing as he's said and done so little since. I think we scared him off. :-(

So in a word, no. Right now, he's just the most likely (because of the "reveal" and RP) of a very unlikely looking group.

[House Connington]

Ok, the last comment could be true, and it makes sense. However, since when does pressure on someone make them talk LESS? I mean, every innocent has to defend themselves against accusations, even if the accusations are asinine. An innocent's only real truth is that he knows he's innocent. Everything else are possible truths. To say that less pressure will make him talk more seems counterproductive to me. You would have a point if you were saying that taking a vote off of him would make him talk more about other people, but you clearly say "no information we can use against him". With no pressure on him, he has no reason to talk about himself.

Go re-read the thread. What happened when the votes piled on him? He tried a quick "i ddin't read" justification, had a tantrum abotu taking RP seriously then dissapeared. Closed up. Stopped defending himself. "I've made my defence, now leave me alone" seemed to be his feelings. That is how pressure makes him talk less.

If i thought a vote on him would make him talk more (as it does to me, you and others) than my vote would still be there. However, i got the impression that it was having the oposite effect.

[House Tyrell]

Sorry, but I guess I think that's "a lot". Maybe he didn't say in his list of possibilities that he was a symp, but he sure was yelling at him for making symp clues. Finding out that there's no symp really changes how you read the game. (I know, because I thought there was no symp and was about to yell at everyone for all the "House" symp-like-clues on Page One when it occured to me that the role lisyt was somewhat vague and there might be a symp, which caused me to reread it all and PM the mod, who told me no, there was no symp, so I decided to not say anything about it at all, and just let people fake-symp all they wanted, so long as they didn't involve me. See?)

Wall of confusing text.

Also, frankly, I don't find saying it'll take a lot to move a vote and then moving it suspicious, especially so early in the game. I've certainly changed my mind about things that I really believed in. *shrug*

And I guess I'm biased since I thought (and still think) that Elesham's behavior was extremely suspicious. Lots of people voted him, and lots of people unvoted him. You're obssessed with the guy who started the voting and was most vocal about it. I find the "yeah, me too" crowd more suspicious, personally.

Try rereading, Prester was the THIRD vote on Elesham.

The other votes didn't seem very genuine, unless Caron thought Ele was pulling an early, day 1 Swann FM.

[House Tyrell]

Go re-read the thread. What happened when the votes piled on him? He tried a quick "i ddin't read" justification, had a tantrum abotu taking RP seriously then dissapeared. Closed up. Stopped defending himself. "I've made my defence, now leave me alone" seemed to be his feelings. That is how pressure makes him talk less.

That's accurate to a degree, but no one was really asking him any other questions, he didn't have much to defend. It quickly moved to a bunch of conjecturing about roles.

[House Connington]

The other votes didn't seem very genuine, unless Caron thought Ele was pulling an early, day 1 Swann FM.

For the sake of anyone who doesn't already know, does someone want to explain the Swann defence, along with it's history? :-p

[House Tyrell]

For the sake of anyone who doesn't already know, does someone want to explain the Swann defence, along with it's history? :-p

The way I understand it, someone who was innocent, on the House Swann alt, previously acted so crazy and obviously FM that they were discounted as an FM. I'm not sure if any FM has since successfully used that to escape pressure, but it's out there as a possibility.

[House Dayne]

Prester, your defense is, at best, poor. You tend to say a bunch of words that end up being... not much more than a bunch of words. Things such as "If I were an FM I wouldn't want to drop an argument that I actually believed in..." This makes little sense, as FMs would want to try to blend in with the innocents. I have class to get to in a little bit, however, I will make another post on you once I return as I don't have the time right now.

In short, my dear Prester, my vote is staying on you as you have not helped yourself in the least with your defenses but rather have done naught but to further incriminate yourself.

[House Tyrell]

Prester, your defense is, at best, poor. You tend to say a bunch of words that end up being... not much more than a bunch of words. Things such as "If I were an FM I wouldn't want to drop an argument that I actually believed in..." This makes little sense, as FMs would want to try to blend in with the innocents. I have class to get to in a little bit, however, I will make another post on you once I return as I don't have the time right now.

In short, my dear Prester, my vote is staying on you as you have not helped yourself in the least with your defenses but rather have done naught but to further incriminate yourself.

Quite interested to hear what you've seen that makes you say this.

ETA: Posted by accident before I was done.

Your first case and vote on Prester came off as genuine. This post seems conveniently timely and unsurprisingly sparse, and makes me rethink my original take on you.

[Magic Mirror]

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. :|

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.

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?

K then, you're tempted to vote Prester over Upcliff because....? Remind me to keep an eye on you, especially since you've been gendered.

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

[House Tyrell]

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?

I didn't get a thing out of it, I know occassionaly a lynch free day is actually the best choice. I was saying there was, at least in his mind, a destination to his path of uselessness. Not something particularly useful, but nothing that merited a knee-jerk lynch vote to me.

[House Connington]

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?

I know it doesn't help my case any, with you defending me (in a round about way), but a clever killer could put killer clues in, just so they can later claim "Oh come on, seriously!"

What's now been named to me as the Swann Defence.

[Magic Mirror]

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

[House Connington]

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

I'm not crazy. Would the elves choose a crazy person to reveal themselves to? Would they choose a "loony" to reveal their secrets to?

[House Upcliff]

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

Jast mainly for his last post

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.

I don't eliminate, I narrow down my suspect pool to a workable number. It's also not immutable. Someone whom I didn't find suspicious on day 1 I may start to find suspicious on day 2 if a connection with another player appears, he does something that rings my alarm bells, etc.

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.

Ambrose's post 96 I see as a case. He says he has a problem with Prester and starts mentioning things he doesn't like. And yes, Ambrose's vote is still on Sunglass (because bad guys wear sunglasses), but I never said anything about no vote. In fact, being very conservative with your vote is something I find somewhat weird on day one.

Ambrose already answered my post, and he insisted on his suspicion of Prester (again without casting a vote):

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.

so I don't know why you had to answer for him again.

Your points against Hasty, on the other hand, I think are noteworthy. I'd like the day to move on from the pro-versus Prester debate which I don't find specially interesting.

[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 Ambrose ( Sarsfield, Jast)

2 votes for Hasty ( Norcross, Inchfield)

1 vote for Sunglass ( Ambrose)

1 vote for Lefford ( Hasty)

1 vote for Upcliff ( Sunglass)

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

You have 20 hours remaining in Day 1!

[House Tyrell]

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?

Agreed

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. :|

So you're leaning towards innocent now for both of them? If so, who would your other lynch candidates be? Still Lefford for that one post, or do you find anything else this game suspicious yet?