AGOT Mafia 46.5

[House Sunglass]

At the moment, the winner (by a whisker) is Ambrose. Sorry if I'm wrong, but I didn't like the way you went from "supporting my lynch but not enough to vote" to "voting for me" the second someone put pressure and a vote on you for not voting me.

Kind of ironic that you, of all people, have a problem with somebody placating the crowd.

That said, I actually agree with you here. Wanted to post about it earlier, but got caught up doing actual work and spending my spare time writing responses to Sunglass. Ambrose shot way up my suspect list when he caved to the pressure and voted for you. I don't mind sending some pressure in his direction.

[House Sunglass]

And sorry Upcliff, but I'm not going to play that game with you. Vote me if you think I'm that evil, drop it if you don't.

You can't get away that easy. If you don't want to go through the whole Prester debate again, fine. But I proved you were lying. You need to at the very least acknowledge it, and explain why you don't agree with my interpretation of events.

[House Tyrell]

Because he changed his mind? I don't think dropping a case is something anyone needs to be "absolved" of, as I don't think there's anything wrong with it. And I'm really done saying that.

I think Elesham is suspicious. I think Lake and Uller were jumping on an unpopular player. But it's not like if Elesham's actually innocent, that Prester was therefore evil and Lake is therefore innocent.

Never said anything like Elesham's innocence would make Prester evil. Prester's behaviour is what makes him suspicious to me, but I'm rather suspicious of everyone right now. Anyway, I guess its just that we saw the exact same events and came to the exact opposite conclusions.

[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.

4 votes for Ambrose ( Jast, Prester, Sarsfield, Upcliff)

3 votes for Prester ( Elesham, Lake, Ambrose)

2 votes for Lefford ( Hasty, Caron)

1 vote for Hasty ( Inchfield)

1 vote for Upcliff ( Sunglass)

3 players have not voted: Lefford, Norcross, Uller.

There are about 15.5 hours remaining in Day 1!

[House Tyrell]

Kind of ironic that you, of all people, have a problem with somebody placating the crowd.

That said, I actually agree with you here. Wanted to post about it earlier, but got caught up doing actual work and spending my spare time writing responses to Sunglass. Ambrose shot way up my suspect list when he caved to the pressure and voted for you. I don't mind sending some pressure in his direction.

Unfortunately he said he won't be here, so I'm not sure he'll feel the pressure.

[House Frey]

Well.

Unfortunately for me, I suck at day 1. I can never seem to find anything new to comment on. I have never been good at making cases. I do well on analyzing data from lynches and the such. But on day 1 I usually find most people looking equally innocent/guilty.

I do want to comment on the following:

Prester... I don't think Prester is anything but innocent. I don't see a FM playing that poorly.

Lefford... while I don't particularily like Lefford, I can't say that I find that person guilty. A bit of a jerk perhaps (but not the only one.)

Sunglass... Cries innocent to me. Sane, reasonable, and makes a lot of sense.

Ambrose... out of all the players, the one I care for the least. But conviently away from the game.

Now speaking of away from the game, I must attend a RL obligation at this time. I will check back in briefly the next chance I get (10 or 11 hours from now.) to see where we stand.

[House Corbray]

You can't get away that easy. If you don't want to go through the whole Prester debate again, fine. But I proved you were lying. You need to at the very least acknowledge it, and explain why you don't agree with my interpretation of events.

* exaggerated sigh* Please don't ask me to do something like this ever again. It takes way too much time. In the unlikely event of your innocence, you'd be wise to stop squandering my limited resources.

Also, no links, as they're a pain in the ass and my internet sucks. But I've included all post numbers.

Begining with Prester's vote:

49--Prester votes Elesham, says it'll take a lot to make him move the vote

51--Elesham gets in a snit and says he'll drop the RP

52--Sarsfield says Prester has tunnel vision regarding Elesham

54--Elesham agrees with Prester

55--Jast quotes Prester and says voting off poorly playing innocents isn't good, and he doesn't suspect Elesham.

(so see, so far, this is three people who've responded negatively to Prester)

55-56--Prester defends himself

57--Elesham responds

58--Prester defends himself

61--Prester resonds to Elesham

62--Sarsfield attacks Prester's case and points out there's no symp

63--Elesham votes Prester

64--Lefford says he doesn't like Prester's case

65--Jast responds to Prester, says he thinks E's innocent

(see, no one likes him, seriously. No one reading this could think "it sure would be hard to lynch Prester")

67--Prester responds

69--Upcliff says there's no symp

Ugh...this is getting tedious.

70-80--Let's just sum it up as "lots of people discuss the role of the vigalante, what it's good for, how it can harm the innocents, other role spec, etc., but Prester is still very much on the defensive

**It's important to note that in #73, Prester removed his vote**

Then finally other stuff happens. And then:

96--Ambrose makes a case against Prester

99--Prester responds

101, 102--Ambrose responds to Prester

106--Uller doesn't like Prester's stance on the vig

107--Prester responds to Uller

108--Upcliff "asks Prester to clarify a few things"

109--Prester responds to Upcliff

113--Upcliff responds to Prester

(meanwhile, other people still keep talking about the vig and stuff)

119--Elesham attacks Prester

122--Prester responds to Elesham

125--Lake makes huge (all rehashed) case on Prester

126--Lake votes Prester

(no posts by Prester in here)

130--Upcliff votes Prester

That's my "interpretation" of it. Prester had been responding to you (and to many other people as well.) I do see that you continued your argument with in in 113, and that Prester came back and responded to the attack Elesham made after your post but not to your post, and made a not-funny joke post. Nonetheless, I see that there was a hostile environment towards Prester, he was resonding to people left and right, including you, you took issue with him several times, and then you voted after Lake did (saying "maybe another vote will convince you that you need to explain yourself better").

If you think my interpretation is "a lie", then...well, whatever. I don't.

[House Dondarrion]

Ambrose... out of all the players, the one I care for the least. But conviently away from the game.

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

Edited for: Clarity

[House Clegane]

So then, I'm back and unsurprised to see a few people suspiscious with me. Rather deservedly so, since all of their points (except the role speculation, but I'll get to that) are pretty much correct. I have been a bit ambiguous and quite opaque so far in the game. Part of it is just indeciciveness (which is a habitual part of day 1), but it's also because I've been pressed for time ever since things started getting interesting. So, I can only adress one of your points, and that is the role speculation. The simple fact is, I wanted to just go over that and primarily wanted to remind people that we do have access to the lynch-free day, and at this point I would like to expand on that. I'm not saying that we need to use it, or even want to consider it at this point. In fact, the game set up makes it quite beneficial if we do manage to lynch every day. We should keep in mind, however, that it is available. More than once I've played in a game where we had the option but ended up going with a half-baked case not having really taken stock of the options just because we could. It's not my intention to say "Hey guys, lets not lynch on one day!".

Also, I'm going to try hard to contribute more of my thoughts and be decisive. To that end, I'm going to give you a concise list of who I find suspiscious, who I don't and why.

Suspiscious:

Prester- He's managed to set off pretty much every alarm I have for FM on day 1. He's been ambiguous, retracted a vote purely because it wasn't popular, attempted repeatedly to back down from conflict and has contradicted himself several times. The case on him is solid, and right now I feel that he would make the best lynch. In addition, there are a lot of connections between him and other players, and either result would in turn give us a lot of information. This is why he has my vote, for the moment.

Hasty- Perhaps this is simply me disliking him because of his vote on me. Either way, he seems quite suspiscious to me, primarily because he seems to be trying to stay in everyone's good graces.

Sarsfield- I'm actually not entirely sure about Sars, but he's quite capriscious and seems to be going primarily for weaker players and making safe votes and cases. He's at the bottom of my three suspects.

Not suspiscious:

Elesham- His poor RP and the subsequent events led me to believe quite firmly that he isn't guilty. Unless something changes, I'm working under the assumption that Elesham is innocent.

Jast- He seems to me to be quite reasonable and helpful. Nothing concrete, but I like him so far. He's far down on my suspect list.

Upcliff- He seems to be keeping himself high profile and he makes a lot of sense. I also don't consider big arguments and significant agressiveness to be common traits of an FM.

Somewhat unsure:

Norcross- Initially I thought his posts were suspiscious, but lately I've been feeling better about his contributions. I'm not sure about him, so that's all there is to it.

Ambrose- I kind of get the case on Ambrose, but I don't find him all that suspiscious myself. I'm definitely putting him down as someone who needs to be watched, though.

[House Tyrell]

Advanced notice: I was called in to a new job starting tomorrow morning, and will miss end of day. I'll have to go to bed soon, and will get up a bit earlier than normal to finish a re-read and post final thoughts.

For the moment I'm leaving my vote on Hasty. His response to my vote was underwhelming. I do realize my vote will probably be of more use elsewhere tomorrow morning, and will look for that place when I re-read tomorrow.

[House Sunglass]

I do see that you continued your argument with in in 113, and that Prester came back and responded to the attack Elesham made after your post but not to your post, and made a not-funny joke post.

Say it with me Silly Sunglass - "And thats what prompted you to vote for Prester."

[House Sunglass]

Re-read Ambrose. I really don't like how wishy-washy he's been on the whole Prester issue. He's gone back and forth a number of times, saying first that he suspects Prester, but then that he is questioning his suspicion due to Prester's steadfast refusal to change his story (which isn't even true - Prester has been rather inconsistent in his explanations). Comes off as if he wants to encourage the lynch, but also at the same time keep his options open if the majority of the group turns on the people who are attacking Prester.

Then he bows to the group pressure, and votes for Prester after a few people say that it's suspicious for him to claim to suspect Prester and not back it up with a vote. Definitely don't like that at all. As I said earlier, I find it very suspicious when people go out of their way to try to avoid being 'unpopular' with the group.

Going to leave my vote where it is.

[House Corbray]

Say it with me Silly Sunglass - "And thats what prompted you to vote for Prester."

I'll say no such thing.

Doing that time line--hating you all the while--frankly made me even more suspicious of you. I had felt but not fully realized how much anti-Prester sentiment was in the thread, and the fact that you kept pushing and pushing and decided to vote because he didn't respond to one post of yours (and trust me, I can emphasize with that) but was still responding to all the other people who were attacking him...I'm sorry, but no.

And you refusing to drop this issue with me makes me think you're either (a)afraid of getting lynched (which I don't think is very likely at all--you getting lynched or you being afraid), or (b)want this huge distraction. And there's no good reason for wanting ( unless you're evil. You don't even seem to suspect me, despite calling me a liar (which I think I proved I am not).

I'd really like to see you hang today.

---------

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

I'm really hoping to be able to access the internet tomorrow morning (before 10 Eastern). I also really hope all our Euros and early risers make lots of comments and votes and such before then, since after that I'll have no access at all till about midnight Eastern. Luckily that will (baring some unforeseen event, like a lynch happening in the next 5 hours and everyone sending in PMs really fast) coincide with night, so I shouldn't be holding anything up or missing anything big. (Aside from the end of the day.)

Edit: Inserted quote I was responding to, since Upcliff felt the urge to post while I was typing.

[House Corbray]

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

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

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

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

So, what I found on him: his first real post(the check-in doesn't count) contained the gender-slip on Hasty. And, like someone (Lefford?) said, the tone does seem kind of forced. And we're on page six and the best he could come up with was a joke-vote? Yuck.

And then he argued a bit with Lefford (it was Lefford ) saying the post was "natural" and it was early in the game and so what if he over-explained a joke vote. And throughout all this, he didn't contribute any actual ideas, which I find disturbing.

Then he vanishes for like 20 hours (I know, real life is real life) which is fine but when he comes back, he makes only one post, and it doesn't impress me much. (Name that tune.) I tend not to trust people who call me innocent (especially this early in a game, and especially who think I "cry" innocent. I mean, I am, but wasn't someone--Lake?--gonna write a case on me and stuff? Only the baddies know I'm innocent. *shrugs*), and he also calls Prester innocent (which I agree with, but seemed to be the popular sentiment at the time), doesn't find Lefford guilty (now, is he just copying my list of people I didn't want to see lynched, including myself? ), and...doesn't really like Ambrose, but since he's (Ambrose's) gone, he won't vote.

So yeah, I'd still like to see him lynched. At the very least, maybe mine and Uller's (and all the votes that will surely follow...) will make him actually comment on the game (or at least more than a sentence or two on 4 players...) next time he pops his head in.

[House Sunglass]

I'll say no such thing.

Doing that time line--hating you all the while--frankly made me even more suspicious of you. I had felt but not fully realized how much anti-Prester sentiment was in the thread, and the fact that you kept pushing and pushing and decided to vote because he didn't respond to one post of yours (and trust me, I can emphasize with that) but was still responding to all the other people who were attacking him...I'm sorry, but no.

You know, I'm really starting to think that I expect too much of people in this game.

Is it really that hard to understand the concept of pressure? Really? You can't comprehend that I wanted to see how he'd respond when I refused to let him off the hook? That I wanted to see how other people would respond to the case against him?

I do this type of thing (put pressure on people on day 1) nearly every game. It benefits the innocents nearly every game. And yet, there are almost always a few people who insist that it's suspicious. Sometimes they're evil and are threatened by me, and sometimes they are innocents...and are threatened by me. Either way, it's getting tiresome.

And you refusing to drop this issue with me makes me think you're either (a)afraid of getting lynched (which I don't think is very likely at all--you getting lynched or you being afraid), or (b)want this huge distraction. And there's no good reason for wanting ( unless you're evil.

As you indicated, you already know that it's not (a). And ( is wrong too. I don't want a huge distraction. What I want is to poke and prod and provoke you, to see if I can make sense of your actions. Same thing I wanted with Prester, but now I've turned a bit of my attention to you.

You don't even seem to suspect me, despite calling me a liar (which I think I proved I am not).

Wrong. You definitely did lie. Not sure why you would think you proved otherwise.

You originally claimed that events happened in this order: 1) I attacked Prester, 2) Prester responded, 3) I attacked Prester again, 4) Prester responded, 5) I voted for Prester.

I showed in my quotes, and you yourself showed in your list of posts that events happened in this order: 1) I attacked Prester, 2) Prester responded, 3) I attacked Prester again, 4) Prester made 2 posts, but ignored the important questions that I asked him, 5) I voted for Prester.

Now, you might try to contend that the difference between the step 4 in your original claim and the step 4 that really occurred is irrelevant. But you'd be dead wrong. A huge part of your case against me is that you think my vote on Prester was opportunistic. But that interpretation of events is based on your original misrepresentation of the facts. Step 4 (Prester ignoring the questions I had asked him) is the event that provoked my vote on Prester....and your decision to incorrectly represent what happened in step 4 allowed you to then make a false claim with regard to my motives.

Point being - you lied about what happened. You then based much of the suspicion you were levying against me on that lie.

The amazing thing here is that your own post proved that you misrepresented events, and yet you're still trying to deny it.

As to whether or not I suspect you - the results of today's lynch will hopefully clear that up for me. I have a potential theory, but it's not worth posting until I have more information.

[Magic Mirror]

OK, this is what I mean by Lefford waffling. I haven't yet noticed any very definite contribution from him, so he fits the stereotype of someone who is trying to appear useful but not actually getting his feet wet.

....

The thing is, Lefford raised the Norcross-Prester connection just as Upcliff and Lake were in their full frenzies against Prester.

So now he realises he meant Hasty not Prester, guess what, he stops pursuing Norcross, doesn't mention Hasty again, and his next post he is attacking Prester and saying Prester has been bugging him all game (did I miss that?):

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

At the moment, the winner (by a whisker) is Ambrose. Sorry if I'm wrong, but I didn't like the way you went from "supporting my lynch but not enough to vote" to "voting for me" the second someone put pressure and a vote on you for not voting me.

Paranoia alert:

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

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

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

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

Hmmm.

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

[House Clegane]

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

Actually, my reasoning for suspecting Prester has nothing to do with Norcross. The reason I made the slip-up in the first place was that I kept coming back to Prester in my thought process, and I wasn't reading carefully through the thread when I made the comment. My initial thoughts about Norcross remain the same, though. The post does come off as forced, and looks to me like the entire thing was staged. Anyways, the fact is that I was supsiscious of Prester before Norcross made that post, and my resoning is not based at all on any connection between the two players.

Secondly: After a quick reread of the last 4 pages, I understand the case on Ambrose a bit better. While I prefer a Prester lynch today (so far), if in the morning it is clear that he won't be lynched I will be willing to put a vote on Ambrose or Hasty (or to a lesser extent Sarsfield or Norcross, but I'd prefer to lynch one of the others today).

ETA: I'm off to bed, and will be back before the end of the day. I should be on until the end of the day or at least very close to it, so don't worry about me being absent if my vote is needed.

[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.

4 votes for Ambrose ( Jast, Prester, Sarsfield, Upcliff)

4 votes for Prester ( Elesham, Lake, Ambrose, Lefford)

2 votes for Lefford ( Hasty, Caron)

2 votes for Norcross ( Uller, Sunglass)

1 vote for Hasty ( Inchfield)

1 player has not voted: Norcross.

You have just under 9.5 hours remaining.

[House Tyrell]

Checking back before work. Didn't quite get as complete a re-read as I would have liked. 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.

[Lady Gaga]

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

<snip>

Three out of eight votes to lynch is not called momentum. I mean, that's pretty much safe territory imo. If anything, Upcliff started the ball rolling with the 4th. Except everyone was asleep or something, so the ball didn't do any rolling.

Upcliff could be Prester's partner. He's probably not Sunglass' partner.

Otherwise, I'm not awake enough to comprehend your post. More thoughts later. I'll be around again before the day ends.