AGOT Mafia 46.5

[House Tyrell]

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.

Obviously, everyone is trying to work their suspects to a more manageable number. I just don't like discounting almost the entire active pool. Personal preference.

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):

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

I wasn't answering for him, I was trying to get you to expound upon why after you narrowed your pool to 7 people, you voted for Ambrose. You have, and I'm glad you did. I find it a bit alarming as well that he presented a decent case, but left his vote on Sunglass.

And I agree, too much focus has been on Prester.

[Lady Gaga]

Mmkay. I just re-read and skimmed through what I've missed. I'd like to second (or third or whatever, not sure) the suspicion on the people that've attacked Prester. Perhaps I'm biased because I think Prester's done nothing remotely FMish in my book, but I do think he's a particularly easy target to attack. Sure, he may be saying ridiculous things and the Swann FM is a viable strategy, I'd say the crazies are more commonly misguided innocents.

I had a strange case of gut rumbling on Upcliff, but he does seem perfectly reasonable on a re-read. I'm thinking that I just didn't like wading through his long posts. A part of me thinks the fact that he presented the meat of his case before his vote was an attempt to test the waters. It makes me uneasy, but hardly anything to warrant a vote. Lake is... weird. Echoes pretty much everything that's been said, except he does it in such an inane way that I'm thinking he's not aware that he's not bringing anything new to the table minus the neon PRESTER BADDIE PRESTER BADDIE! signs.

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.

Ambrose, I'm a bit concerned here. You are suspicious of Prester. You've been questioning and then attacking Prester, and you have not mentioned anyone else that you're suspicious of thus far (unless you have, in which case, my bad). Well, alright then. Why don't you vote Prester? Are you trying to keep your options open? Afraid to commit your vote? What's going on here?

[Lady Gaga]

Erm, sorry about the double bolding in that post, mods. To clarify, I meant to vote for Ambrose. I'd edit the bold PRESTER BADDIE into italics, but... no editing out votes, right?

[House Wythers]

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.

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):

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.

Like I mentioned before, there is one thing that's holding be back on voting Prester, and that's his change is seeming to unwaver, even with all this pressure on him. It's making me reconsider him being innocent, and I'm trying to determine if my suspicion of him is just because I don't like his playstyle (specifically a willingness to lynch a stupid townie early in the game).

I just got back, and I'm going to go over and re read again.

[House Mooton]

OK, quick read suggests that Sunglass picked on Upcliff who picked on Prester who picked on Elesham... this could be a sort of circle anti-jerk...

Off to reread now.

[Lady Gaga]

Like I mentioned before, there is one thing that's holding be back on voting Prester, and that's his change is seeming to unwaver, even with all this pressure on him. It's making me reconsider him being innocent, and I'm trying to determine if my suspicion of him is just because I don't like his playstyle (specifically a willingness to lynch a stupid townie early in the game).

Of course he's not going to change his playstyle if he's evil. That'd be suicide. He may as well just find a noose and hang himself for us.

[House Wythers]

Erm, sorry about the double bolding in that post, mods. To clarify, I meant to vote for Ambrose. I'd edit the bold PRESTER BADDIE into italics, but... no editing out votes, right?

I just answered that suspicion, and to be honest, I'm working on a different case right now.

I have voiced my suspicions against Prester. If you find me suspicious of not putting a vote on, fine. But like I said, his steadfast stance in the face of pressure is making me wonder, and I'm rereading to see if my suspicions are justified..

[House Ashford]

Perhaps I'm biased because I think Prester's done nothing remotely FMish in my book, but I do think he's a particularly easy target to attack. Sure, he may be saying ridiculous things and the Swann FM is a viable strategy, I'd say the crazies are more commonly misguided innocents.

You think Prester is

1. An easy target

and 2. saying ridiculous things

so you choose to accept that he isn't FM.

Viable, but here is a counterpoint.

Prester attacks me rather vividly when I am

1. saying ridiculous things (RP that ended up looking like a killer/guard/vig/symp clue)

2. an easy target (because of above)

and chooses to make that point at me BEING FM.

It, in all honesty, probably would have taken little effort to get me killed if the issue had been pressed. Prester, however, did not even stick to his guns with his vote on me. He still claims to believe me to be FM, but is not voting me because it's not a popular idea? This is not something an innocent thinks, it's an FM idea. Not voting someone because people disagree is a sign of placating other people's opinion to swim along with the rest. I don't like it one bit.

[House Wythers]

Of course he's not going to change his playstyle if he's evil. That'd be suicide. He may as well just find a noose and hang himself for us.

I keep on looking at this, and I keep on trying to come up with a counterpoint about it. I can't. It's the one point that's holding me back on the situation like I said before. I did say that him changing his playstyle would draw more attention, but not necessarily get him lynched. However, you are right. He can't back off at this point or he'd look even worse. I'll put my vote on Prester , however, I'm still rereading at this point. I can't be sure I'll be around consistently in the time up to the deadline, and if I can't make it back in time, I want my vote on who I think is FM, and that person is Prester.

In my quick reread, I have problems with Caron, but mostly because up to this point, all his posts were jabbing posts during the joke vote period, and him not talking about the Prester situation. Since he is back, hopefully he'll provide his view on the situation.

[Lady Gaga]

Fair enough, Elesham. However, let me put this is a different light: I think that Prester was genuine when he thought there was a symp in this game. Now what kind of FM doesn't check if he's actually got a symp or not, hm? He also placed a third vote way back on, what was it, page 2? At that time, if he is indeed an FM, there's a good chance that his partner hadn't even shown up yet. What kind of FM would make such a bold move so early?

On that note, Prester, put your damn vote on whoever you think is the most likely FM from what you've seen so far. That is how the game is played, fuck what everyone else thinks.

[House Wythers]

Fair enough, Elesham. However, let me put this is a different light: I think that Prester was genuine when he thought there was a symp in this game. Now what kind of FM doesn't check if he's actually got a symp or not, hm? He also placed a third vote way back on, what was it, page 2? At that time, if he is indeed an FM, there's a good chance that his partner hadn't even shown up yet. What kind of FM would make such a bold move so early?

On that note, Prester, put your damn vote on whoever you think is the most likely FM from what you've seen so far. That is how the game is played, fuck what everyone else thinks.

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding the logic. I thought the whole idea of a symp was a member who knew who the members of the FM were. Why would a symp breadcrumb so blatently to everyone?

[House Dayne]

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.

Oh ok, so you're placating everyone then. You'd rather find a popular person to lynch, gotcha.

That's not FM-ish at ALL. Nuh uh

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.

Ok, since you apparently don't get it, I'll explain it...

This is a game of attrition. If you believe someone to be an innocent, you don't want to lynch them, even if they're not very good at the game.

The FMs win when their number is equal to or greater than the innocents. Therefore, they want the innocents dead and want to get the innocents to lynch each other.

The only weapons that the innocents have, aside from whatever power roles they might hope to have, are the power to vote and the power of numbers. By willingly lynching someone who you believe to be an innocent, you are willingly trying to hamstring the innocents, even if that player is not very good, they are a person who you want to keep alive. Why? Because that is one more innocent alive and that is one more day that the innocents may remain alive and attempt to find an FM.

It is ALWAYS better to lynch for FM-type characteristics in a player than for stupid play-style.

And yet you advocate lynching poor players on D1 over ones who seem to be more FM-ish? Even if it's weak FM-type characteristics, that's better than lynching a player who might not be very good.

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.

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.

"So if I'm rolling the dice on who might be an FM, we might as well go with the person who isn't a very good player and who I've given 2/3 odds chance of being an innocent. Might as well kill someone who's a dumb innocent than a person who's got an outside chance of being an FM, amirite or amirite?" HURRRRRRR

Honestly, you advocating the killing of those who you believe to be innocent is 1.) Silly, 2.) Anti-innocent.

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.

HUURRRRR

No, really, that's just god damned silly, I agree with Hasty on that point.

Throw in to this your early attempt to lynch Elesham and push for his lynch, and then backing off "because it wasn't popular"... Vote stays.

And now to respond to the fan mail!

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.

I'm sorry I had classes to go to, but I wanted to get my thoughts down on the situation before I headed off to my classes...?

Lake is... weird. Echoes pretty much everything that's been said, except he does it in such an inane way that I'm thinking he's not aware that he's not bringing anything new to the table minus the neon PRESTER BADDIE PRESTER BADDIE! signs.

Oh Sarsfield, you card.

[Lady Gaga]

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding the logic. I thought the whole idea of a symp was a member who knew who the members of the FM were. Why would a symp breadcrumb so blatently to everyone?

I believe you misunderstood me. My point is that if Prester is an FM, then he is one that believed he had a symp. If he believed he had a symp, then he'd be an FM that didn't even bother reading the rules to check if he had a symp. I don't know about you, but when I'm an FM, I'm very interested in what roles there might be and whether or not I have a symp. Prester wasn't aware that this is a sympless game, which strikes me as an innocent quality.

[House Tyrell]

I'm sorry I had classes to go to, but I wanted to get my thoughts down on the situation before I headed off to my classes...?

That's fine. What do you think about any other cases that are out there? The case on Prester has been pretty much hashed out.

[House Wythers]

I believe you misunderstood me. My point is that if Prester is an FM, then he is one that believed he had a symp. If he believed he had a symp, then he'd be an FM that didn't even bother reading the rules to check if he had a symp. I don't know about you, but when I'm an FM, I'm very interested in what roles there might be and whether or not I have a symp. Prester wasn't aware that this is a sympless game, which strikes me as an innocent quality.

I don't think it's that simple. If he knew that he didn't have a symp, then he could easily attack someone for being a symp.

Unfortuneatly, I have run across some complications in my RL, and I will be gone at the doctor's for most of the night. Like I said before, I don't know when I'll be back from that, as it's significant enough to require me to be there for a while. Hopefully I will come back late this evening. I apologize for the inconvience.

[House Corbray]

Who I'd like to see lynched today

1) Upcliff (mmm, Cliff bars )

2) Elesham, Lake (they're tied)

4) Norcross

5) Hasty

Who I don't really care about

6) Ambrose, Caron, Inchfield, Jast, Uller

Who I'd rather keep around

11) Sarsfield

12) Lefford

13) Prester

Who won't be lynched under any circumstances

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

Just sayin'.

[House Dayne]

That's fine. What do you think about any other cases that are out there? The case on Prester has been pretty much hashed out.

I don't think that there's a terribly strong case to be made for Ambrose at the moment, but there might be a case to be made on Sunglass at the moment. I'm going to be doing a re-read and hash one out. Expect one later.

edit: And I swear if he calls OMGUS on me for saying that...

[House Connington]

It is ALWAYS better to lynch for FM-type characteristics in a player than for stupid play-style.

And yet you advocate lynching poor players on D1 over ones who seem to be more FM-ish? Even if it's weak FM-type characteristics, that's better than lynching a player who might not be very good.

"So if I'm rolling the dice on who might be an FM, we might as well go with the person who isn't a very good player and who I've given 2/3 odds chance of being an innocent. Might as well kill someone who's a dumb innocent than a person who's got an outside chance of being an FM, amirite or amirite?" HURRRRRRR

Re-read me. I never said i'd vote a stupid person off ahead of a guilty seeming person. What i said is that if all guilt looked relatively equal, I'd rather go for the one who would be missed least if we're wrong.

If i can lynch someone who seems suspicious, that's the optimum case. However, if no-one seems more or less guilty than anyone else, can you really argue with the idea that it's best to lynch the person who will be missed the least if innocent?

[House Tyrell]

Who I'd like to see lynched today

1) Upcliff (mmm, Cliff bars )

2) Elesham, Lake (they're tied)

4) Norcross

5) Hasty

Fine and dandy. I don't like Norcross or Hasty. Upcliff pressuring Prester doesn't concern me nearly as much as it concerns you. In fact, half of your six posts are dedicated to your not liking Upcliff's case, so much so that you want him lynched for being "opportunistic".

I'm still waiting for a response in regards to the following things.

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*

On day one, there aren't very many things I find LESS suspicious than being nearly certain about a vote, and then changing it at the slightest resistance. However, I still don't think Presster is guilty, but he certainly needed to explain himself, and Upcliff (and to a degree, Lake) did a good job of facilitating that. Just what is it about pressuring someone to talk on day one do you find so suspicious?

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.

Again, I want to point out that Presster was the third vote on Elesham, not the guy who started the voting. The fact is, you built a case against Upcliff for being opportunistic on Presster, and exhonerate Presster when he did the same.

[House Dayne]

Re-read me. I never said i'd vote a stupid person off ahead of a guilty seeming person. What i said is that if all guilt looked relatively equal, I'd rather go for the one who would be missed least if we're wrong.

If i can lynch someone who seems suspicious, that's the optimum case. However, if no-one seems more or less guilty than anyone else, can you really argue with the idea that it's best to lynch the person who will be missed the least if innocent?

Congrats on replying to only one part of the post. Cool beans, dude.