Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mexal

AGOT Mafia 46.5

Recommended Posts

Ambrose, why did you change from not wanting to vote for me to voting for me as soon as pressure was applied in the form of votes? Are you merely trying to help team innocent by keeping the only person you know to be innocent (yourself) alive, or are you an FM, looking to placate the crowd? Or perhaps you waitied until now to add the vote so that once i come back as innocent, you can claim that you was a doubter all along, carried by popular opinion. Of course, the latter would be beneficial to both an FM and an innocent who puts their own survival first... which admittedly at this (early) stage of the game seems to be the best course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I will. It's nice to know you only have problems with me only when I'm absent. I feel wanted :)

Who I don't really care about

6) Caron

:cry:

I am curious why you are so enamoured of Lefford though.

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.

:stunned:

I await that one with great anticipation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

:smoking:

My point is more that out of your 6 posts, 5 of them were about Presster. Just hoping to get more input. Not going to OMGUS you.

In addendum, more than one point in your latest case changed this wording (or read something that simply wasn't there at all) to make him look worse. Luckily Presster pointed that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

True, he could, but why?

On a different note, I'd like to poke at Jast and Norcross a little. I was going to just pick whomever had the lowest post count, but you boys tied, so I'll poke at third place Uller instead. Haven't forgot about you though, Ambrose, don't worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so Prester has finally responded to my questions. And I’m still not convinced by his answers, for the most part. Inconsistencies bother me, and he’s been nothing if not inconsistent throughout the course of this game. That said, I do appreciate the fact that he went against his previously professed inclination and decided to try to explain himself in more detail.

For now, I’m going to hold off on responding to him, and instead reply to one of the people defending him – Sunglass.

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.

He mentioned the symp issue in a later post. It was not a part of the post where he laid out his initial reasons for voting for Elesham. Finding out that there aren't any symps in the game wouldn't have undermined his original reasons for the vote.

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*

He removed his vote 20 minutes after casting it. That's a fairly short time to go from "it will take a lot to get me to remove this vote" to "okay, I'll remove my vote". Sure, I could see somebody changing their mind after a while, as things change in the game, other suspects come to the forefront, and other issues are raised. But after 20 minutes? That’s something that requires a realistic justification. One that actually calls into question the original reasons upon which his vote was based.

Beyond that, he explicitly said that he hadn't changed his mind about Elesham. He wasn't less suspicious of him. He still wanted to vote for him. He just removed his vote because he realized that he was pushing an unpopular opinion.

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.

You're either lying here, or you didn't read the thread very carefully. I explained this before, in my first reply to you. I asked Prester some questions, got a response, asked some follow up questions, and then got nothing in reply. I was willing to wait for him, but then he posted in the thread. A few times. And completely ignored my follow up questions. That's when I voted for him.

You're acting as if I was using the momentum created by Lake to justify my vote for Prester. I think even the most rudimentary reading of the thread shows that isn't an accurate interpretation of events. I was the driving force behind an examination of Prester's behavior. Not Elesham, who voted in retribution, and not Lake, who only voted after I had called Prester out for inconsistencies in his behavior. When I made my first post against Prester, nobody was really attacking him. I turned the spotlight onto him.

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.

1) There is no behavior that is exclusively performed by the FM. Every time somebody says ‘that behavior is indicative of the FM’, people will be able to respond ‘yeah, but innocents do it too’. Like I said to Prester – yes, I think it’s possible that he’s innocent. That said, I’m looking for behavior that I associate with the FM. And his decision to back off of his case against Elesham because he realized it was ‘unpopular’ is something that I associate with the FM. That’s true, regardless of whether or not innocents sometimes act in that way as well.

To provide an extreme analogy – let’s say we are looking for a monkey. We know that 90% of monkeys like to hang from trees. We also know that 30% of children like to hang from trees. We find something hanging from a tree. Are we going to ignore the possibility that it’s a monkey, based on the fact that some children also like to hang from trees? Of course not. We’re going to investigate further, because we know that he fits at least part of the profile we have for being a monkey.

2) He wasn’t more productive elsewhere. He backed off of Elesham, but didn’t go after anybody else.

So you'd rather he just flung it on someone else? I mean, granted, that's my style. :P 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.

It has nothing to do with what I’d rather have him do. It has to do with what he claimed he was doing. He said he removed his vote so he could use it to apply pressure elsewhere. But he never actually applied pressure elsewhere. His statement was inconsistent with his behavior.

I’m really struggling to understand how you could fail to see any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beyond that, he explicitly said that he hadn't changed his mind about Elesham. He wasn't less suspicious of him. He still wanted to vote for him. He just removed his vote because he realized that he was pushing an unpopular opinion.

Just a quick clarification. Other people's arguments did make me less suspicious. He was still my "most guilty", but not by as much as origionally. Lets say i origionally found everyone 10% suspicious just for existing... He would have instantly become 90%, only to fall down to 65% once i saw reason and knew there was no symp. Still favourite, still the person that, right then, i'd want lynched most, but not as suspicious.

I have to admit, Ambrose is pushing into a similar area with the way he tried so hard not to vote for me for so long, despite supporting the cause, before finally voting for me the second votes started tallying up on him. I'm still waiting for a little more first, but if i have to go to bed tonight and risk night while i sleep, I'll be torn between Elesham and Ambrose.

One thing I'd like to suggest is that right now, if there are three FMs, chances are one is on my lynch train, one is on my supporters list and one is staying well out of it. If i do get lynched tonight, I'd like to ask team innocent to look for one from each group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Prester ( Elesham, Lake, Upcliff, Ambrose)

2 votes for Hasty ( Norcross, Inchfield)

1 vote for Lefford ( Hasty)

1 vote for Uller ( Sarsfield)

1 vote for Ambrose ( Jast)

1 vote for Upcliff ( Sunglass)

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

You have 17.5 hours remaining.

Mod note:

Your spectators really like to hear your thoughts :) So PM us!

Mod Edit:

I mixed people up, so I edited the votes, sorry guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

You're right - my vote on Elesham wasn't of the DIE FM DIE variety favoured by Lake. I didn't think it very likely his RP was an epic bad-guy slip-up, and Elesham's explanation rang true with me. While I sympathise with those who find him worrying enough to lynch (horrible RP coupled with vindictive votes), there are others I would be more curious to see the coroner dissect.

I did wonder if Prester was jumping on Elesham as an easy target, but Prester has been so consistent in his views, and doesn't come across as trying to be particularly logical or careful, that I am inclined to think Prester is a red herring too.

Which brings me into the same camp as those who are looking at who jumped on Prester. I also am slightly wary of Upcliff, for example. It seems to me that anyone using careful logic to try and attack Prester is using the wrong tool for the job, and anyone who persists in doing so is probably playing for the masses rather than actually trying to 'catch Prester in a slip' - there are already enough slips, if one takes slips of logic as the mark of guilt, and I feel FM are probably less likely to make such slips than innocents. Upcliff could be just incredibly earnest, but I'm a bit worried he is just rolling over somebody who is easy to attack, rather than trying to pinpoint an FM.

So I do follow Sunglass's case on him, though Sunglass also claims to be suspicious of Elesham, of whom I am not currently. I also see Sarsfield's point about Ambrose (and Ambrose voting for Prester after Sarsfield pointed out how odd it was that Ambrose had not voted seems a little defensive).

I would also currently happily lynch Lefford for waffling, or Norcross for being kind of nervy. I'll try and explain what I mean but not sure how much time I have.

Edit: tag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My, my...

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".
Ok, quickly, if you're unhappy with the number of my posts, then vote me off now, because I'm doing my best, but frankly, I'm giving all I can right now. It's not going to imrpove. In fact, tomorrow I don't expect to be able to post from about 10 am to midnight Eastern Time, and that's just that.

If you object to the quality of my posts, then that's a different thing entirely.

Also, I have seven posts, and this is my eight. And two of them deal with me not liking Upcliff's case: the one where I first said so and the one where I answered Uller's huge postabout how I didn't read his post and my case was null and void, etc. I guess I could have just ignored his post (I'm fairly tempted to ignore the one I'm about to answer, as "verbose" seems a mild adjective to describe it. :P)

So what is it you're trying to say here?

'm still waiting for a response in regards to the following things.
Sorry, I didn't realize. *shrugs*

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?
Hmm? I don't find pressuring someone to talk to be suspicious. I'm not about to go re-read myself (bad enough that I had to look up those links :P), but I'm like 100% positive that I never said that.

"Forcing him to explain himself" may have been what it looked like to you. I saw him justifying it multiple times before either of them voted.

I didn't like the feel of their votes on him--Lake popping up out of nowhere to comment on absolutely nothing except to basically rehash what everyone else had been complaining about, adding a bolded "headline", voting, and then vanishing. (And since then, having appeared only to say "bollocks" and do more re-hashing of the Prester case.) And Upcliff had been challenging Prester throught the thread, but didn't vote until right after Lake did.

I'm sorry, but that just felt wrong to me. Clearly, Prester was not getting much love through the thread--see, e.g. pages 2-4--and so it just seemed opportunistic, like since so many people had taken issue with him, it would be an easy lynch to push through once it got some momentum going.

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.
Sorry--I'd remembered him as the first. (I also said he was the "first and most vocal", and he was still the most vocal.) And I liked the votes on Elesham. I thought I made it clear. His RP was attrocious, and it did look like symp clues, and it did look like a vig clue, and it did look like he was trying to set-up a Swann Defense. I have no problem with anyone who voted him, especially as he's mainly just vanished now that his accuser is in the spotlight. So I didn't see it as "opportunistic" because (1) it happened so quickly, so there hadn't been the growing discontent, etc. that there was with Prester, and (2) I thought it was a good case, whereas I think the one against Prester is crap.

I will. It's nice to know you only have problems with me only when I'm absent. I feel wanted :)

:cry:

I am curious why you are so enamoured of Lefford though.

:stunned:

I await that one with great anticipation.

Don't be silly--I had problems with you when you were here.

Lefford strikes me as innocent, that's all.

Ok...I'm going to answer this and then be done with it, as I don't really see either of us convincing the other, and I've said what I need to say for the rest of the players to read, and it would just be a big waste of time. So enjoy:

He mentioned the symp issue in a later post. It was not a part of the post where he laid out his initial reasons for voting for Elesham. Finding out that there aren't any symps in the game wouldn't have undermined his original reasons for the vote.
*shrug* Like I said, getting the knowledge that there isn't a symp can change the whole way you view the game. Even if it wasn't a specifically stated reason. I know I excuse a lot more shit RP and such when there's no symp. Maybe I was just projecting.

He removed his vote 20 minutes after casting it. That's a fairly short time to go from "it will take a lot to get me to remove this vote" to "okay, I'll remove my vote". Sure, I could see somebody changing their mind after a while, as things change in the game, other suspects come to the forefront, and other issues are raised. But after 20 minutes? That’s something that requires a realistic justification. One that actually calls into question the original reasons upon which his vote was based.
Well, he did learn there was no symp (which you don't think matters), and yeah, a lot of people gave him crap for claiming it would take a lot to move his vote. But I still don't find that suspicious. Lord knows I change my vote all the time, and I make cases I then completely discard.

I'd personally rather someone abandoned a case they ceased to believe in than push one they didn't believe in. Doing the latter is not in our best interests.

I asked Prester some questions, got a response, asked some follow up questions, and then got nothing in reply. I was willing to wait for him, but then he posted in the thread. A few times. And completely ignored my follow up questions. That's when I voted for him.
Yes, you poked at him, he replied, you poked, he replied, I guess you poked some more and he didn't reply, THEN LAKE VOTED, then you voted him. I see the intervening fact as important.

That said, I’m looking for behavior that I associate with the FM. And his decision to back off of his case against Elesham because he realized it was ‘unpopular’ is something that I associate with the FM.
Well, I don't. I associate it with innocents who tend to be new and unsure of themselves.

2) He wasn’t more productive elsewhere. He backed off of Elesham, but didn’t go after anybody else.

It has nothing to do with what I’d rather have him do. It has to do with what he claimed he was doing. He said he removed his vote so he could use it to apply pressure elsewhere. But he never actually applied pressure elsewhere. His statement was inconsistent with his behavior.

Like I said, his weirdo quote about the vote makes me think he views votes very differently than I do. I think everyone should feel threatened by my power to vote no matter who I have my vote on. Others feel like once they put a vote on someone, they're kind of committed to them and thus not a threat to other players, so having the vote "free" (not saying they can't move it, saying that, in their opinion, it isn't attached to anyone and thus more "free") is a bigger threat.

I’m really struggling to understand how you could fail to see any of this.
Yeah, I understand, since right now I feel like you completely failed to see the huge post I already wrote you. :P

Edit: fixed the links, I think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a different note, I'd like to poke at Jast and Norcross a little. I was going to just pick whomever had the lowest post count, but you boys tied, so I'll poke at third place Uller instead. Haven't forgot about you though, Ambrose, don't worry.

Ow. That's mean.

I have to say I don't really like the Upcliff/Prester back and forth. Too much the mismatch in terms of argumentative ability, which makes it harder to see whats going on. For me, Prester's play so far looks like relative inexperience combined with some sloppy reasoning (not that that's a sign of innocence by any means) so it means Upcliff looks like a bully. :P Not really sure what to do with this particular issue. I'm going to try and find a more palatable course of action to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My, my...

Ok, quickly, if you're unhappy with the number of my posts, then vote me off now, because I'm doing my best, but frankly, I'm giving all I can right now. It's not going to imrpove. In fact, tomorrow I don't expect to be able to post from about 10 am to midnight Eastern Time, and that's just that.

I don't vote people off for their number of posts. I don't like when people who can contribute only a few posts, use them with tunnel vision.

Also, I have seven posts, and this is my eight. And two of them deal with me not liking Upcliff's case: the one where I first said so and the one where I answered Uller's huge postabout how I didn't read his post and my case was null and void, etc. I guess I could have just ignored his post (I'm fairly tempted to ignore the one I'm about to answer, as "verbose" seems a mild adjective to describe it. :P )

I was including your suspect list as pushing Upcliff.

Hmm? I don't find pressuring someone to talk to be suspicious. I'm not about to go re-read myself (bad enough that I had to look up those links :P ), but I'm like 100% positive that I never said that.

"Forcing him to explain himself" may have been what it looked like to you. I saw him justifying it multiple times before either of them voted.

I think he's addressed this. Asking for explanation for inconsistent behavior, and not getting it, is plenty of justification for adding more pressure with a vote.

I didn't like the feel of their votes on him--Lake popping up out of nowhere to comment on absolutely nothing except to basically rehash what everyone else had been complaining about, adding a bolded "headline", voting, and then vanishing. (And since then, having appeared only to say "bollocks" and do more re-hashing of the Prester case.) And Upcliff had been challenging Prester throught the thread, but didn't vote until right after Lake did.

I'm sorry, but that just felt wrong to me. Clearly, Prester was not getting much love through the thread--see, e.g. pages 2-4--and so it just seemed opportunistic, like since so many people had taken issue with him, it would be an easy lynch to push through once it got some momentum going.

I can't tell, do you believe there is a connection between Lake and Upcliff? Or do you just believe Upcliff is guilty of capitalizing on Lake's vote? I can't see anyway both of them would be guilty, and Upcliff doesn't seem sloppy enough to try to bandwagon on Lake's vote.

Sorry--I'd remembered him as the first. (I also said he was the "first and most vocal", and he was still the most vocal.) And I liked the votes on Elesham. I thought I made it clear. His RP was attrocious, and it did look like symp clues, and it did look like a vig clue, and it did look like he was trying to set-up a Swann Defense. I have no problem with anyone who voted him, especially as he's mainly just vanished now that his accuser is in the spotlight. So I didn't see it as "opportunistic" because (1) it happened so quickly, so there hadn't been the growing discontent, etc. that there was with Prester, and (2) I thought it was a good case, whereas I think the one against Prester is crap.

If you thought it was a good case, why do you absolve Prester for dropping it so quickly and for being pointedly inconsistent? And if you think the case on Elesham is good, do you really see Lake or Upcliff, or both, as being his partner and sloppy enough to step up to defend him like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally back online. I am re-reading now. I am going to try to add my two cents worth. I have 3 or 4 pages to slog through.

Remove vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

His early posts feature meaningless banter and an atrocious pun:

Why would a House Hunter make things easier? I know quite a few people who are looking for houses right about now. Heck, if I was homeless you could probably call me a house hunter too.

ETA: Ambrose, you win. You just reminded me of the new episode coming tonight. I am so stoked now!

His accusation of Elesham is clearly labelled 'not serious':

So, not only have you essentially stolen my av, you are a big game hunter. I dislike this already.

Look, friends, he contradicts himself within his own post. Similarly, he claims to have lost his gun in airport security, when clearly it was taken from him when we found the supply of guns and bullets. Elesham, your innocent act is a complete sham!

Yet he says his main objection was to Elesham's RP (which earlier he had connived in):

Well, as Ele has said there is no symp, so that's out. Could be he was mafia, but it's not nearly enough for me to say that he's a viable lynch. I just wanted him to drop his horrible RP. Which he did.

Elesham: Really, though, it's not a good idea to do RP the way you did. It really, really helps nobody when you don't read the scene or the role PMs before jumping in with stuff that sounds like killer RP.

Here he seems to be trying to appease everybody, including Elesham (he seems really confident Elesham is innocent - mind you, I also dropped any slight suspicion of Elesham at this point) - but he seems to be going overboard to sound really 'nice'.

He also makes a role spec post, which I agree with Hasty isn't terribly helpful. This is another example of waffle:

Hmm... I don't really have any reason to be voting for Elesham right now, so I'm going to remove vote.

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot to say about the overall ramifications of a vig kill. It can be critical in certain situations, but where we are right now an extra kill will not effect the number of lynch opportunities in the game so long as we don't go to night (or in the case of a successful heal). A lot of people see vig kills as taking a lynch into their own hands (which it is in the case of an odd number of players), but in this situation it doesn't take away a lynch opportunity unless there is a successful heal. So long as the vig sets things up properly beforehand, there is no ill effect from using the power and I see no reason why a vig would avoid it if they have a reasonable cantidate. I mean, even in the worst of circumstances it crosses off two suspects (the vig and his target).

Then he simultaneously defends Norcross's gender slip and raises its significance by saying there is a connection between Norcross and Prester:

IMO, it's only a gender slip if the person always uses one gender (or a gender-neutral term) and then uses a different gender for a specific player. As Norcross has only ever used one gender term, this doesn't really qualify. Of course, there are... other reasons to suspect a connection between Norcross and Prester. In fact, the whole post looked funny to me, but not because of the pronoun.

Okay, fine. It felt force, like you were trying to find a reason to vote for him without having any obligation to avtually leave your vote there. It looked bad to me, especially where you tried so hard to explain that it was an unreasonable joke vote and not to be taken seriously. The whole post felt wierd, and that's why I say there is a connection between you and prester.

Then it turns out he made a mistake:

:bang: That's what I get for not consulting my notes. Indeed, I meant Hasty, not Prester. And the rest of your post is... Well, the entire thing is meta. "If I have correctly alt-guessed", "People who know me" and all the rest. Seriously, what the hell are you trying to do with that post?

*Grumbles about people going out of their way to reveal their alt*

Is this an embarrassed tailing off?

And if he is keeping notes, why haven't we seen any evidence of it yet?

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?):

Well, I'm checking in one last time before I go to bed and before I do I want to adress the issue of Prester. I agree more than a little with the case made against him: his play has been anything but the model of an innocent. Most of the points have already been brought up, and as I said I agree with many of them. Prester has been pushing moves that make very little sense and has definitely avoided explaining things clearly (or in some cases at all). Additionally, something about his behavior has been bugging me the whole game, and while I hate to base anything on vibes specifically they do have some pull in my decision making process. All that said, I am not going to vote for him right now because I'm not interested in seeing such a large train with over 24 hours left in the day, but I am going to voice my suspiscion.

Back in about 8 hours.

He's carefully hedging his bets though.

So, Lefford, are you carefully following trends here, while appearing to remain terribly nice and reasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd personally rather someone abandoned a case they ceased to believe in than push one they didn't believe in. Doing the latter is not in our best interests.

He ceased to believe in his case? Really? In a recent post, Prester says that Elesham was "Still favourite, still the person that, right then, i'd want lynched most." Does that sound as if he had ceased to believe in the case?

Yes, you poked at him, he replied, you poked, he replied, I guess you poked some more and he didn't reply, THEN LAKE VOTED, then you voted him. I see the intervening fact as important.

Oh really? At this point, Sunglass, I have no choice but to conclude that you are intentionally lying about what happened. As I have said over and over, I questioned him, he replied, I questioned him again, and he did not reply. You are claiming he did. Prove it with quotes.

While you're looking for something that doesn't exist, I'll post the quotes that show what really happened.

First, I called Prester out. He replied with this post -

Basicly, it was looking unlikely anythign would come of it, everyone else had decided to put it down as a fuck up, so i thought it's better to have a vote I can use where necisary than one stuck on a one vote person. Like i said, I'm still very suspicious of him, and if there was less time, I'd have left the vote on him. I can always re place it if i need to...

And the symp thing i forgot to mention at first. Okay, so it was 1/4th of my argument gone, but either way my argument clearly wasn't a popular one, so i thought it better to withdraw, retreat and wait until I had a better case, be it on him or anyone else.

I didn't buy his answer, and asked follow up questions -

So the statement "it will take a lot for me to move my vote" was essentially meaningless? All it took to get you to move your vote was for a few people to say that they weren't suspicious of Elesham?

Also, unless I'm missing something, your claim that you removed vote so you could use it "where necessary" is b.s. You aren't currently voting for anybody, right? So you aren't using your vote for any "necessary" purpose now. And as for a future "necessary" purpose....well, there's no difference between moving your vote from Elesham onto somebody else and moving your vote from nobody onto somebody else.

He ignored me. Instead of answering my questions, he chose to post replies to posts by Elesham and Norcross. First, the response to Elesham -

Leader? Wouldn't that require me to actually... well... lead the group, as opposed to just throw my opinions around? A good leader sells to the led, he convinces them to follow, and then he leads. I am not a leader. I doubt I'll end up a leader. Not that being leader is a bad thing...

And my motives are pretty simple. I want a win for team Innocent, by any means necisary. Of course, we'll all claim that, so it's rather silly talking about motives...

Then the reply to Norcross -

Don't worry, in my mind you are all She's. With large breasts, loose morals and a tight... Grasp of logic?

And of course, a fine.... Mind?

I called bullshit on his decision to ignore my questions. And voted for him, specifically stating that my vote was designed to pressure him into responding to my questions -

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.

So why are you lying Sunglass? You clearly want to label me as being opportunistic, but the facts don't support your claim. Did I vote after Lake? Yeah, I did. But was there another "intervening fact" that inspired my vote? One that was completely separate from Lake's vote? One that I cited in the very post in which I voted for Sunglass? Yeah, there was. Yet you are ignoring it, for some unknown reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I'll be offline for a fair while now. I may be able to pop back on in half an hour for a few minutes, but it's doubtful. After that, I should be out of action for another 6 hours (6 and a half hours from now), at which point i might get ten minutes. Again, after that, I'll be out of action for anothe 11-12 hours. I guestimate i should get back online around 2 hours after our day 1 deadline.

If i'm not here tomorrow, then good luck team innocent, and I'll see you all on the other side.

If i do make it, then see you all tomorrow, both in real and gaming terms.

Before i go, i should vote on the person i find most guilty.

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.

Edit: Also, it was quite oppertunistic, having to run just after doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Norcross (who will hopefully say a bit more soon) struck me as unduly nervous:

I see the fun has started without me. Sorry to be late. I am reading the thread now (6 frickin' pages!)

eta: Oooooh! I got a cool Avi! Apparently we Norcross' are film makers of some kind.

OK... done with my reread.

Many mafia generations from now, we will refer to this game as the Elesham Fiasco. :lol: Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

If it's not too late for joky, beginning of day votes, I'll vote for Hasty but only becuase I may have a crush on him/her/it/them.

If it is to late for joky, beginning of day votes, then Hasty is getting a vote for talking about existentialism (if that really is a word and really a concept.)

Except he/she/it/they didn't really mention it. Crap. I hope it's not too late for joky beginning of day votes, because I don't have a real reason.

:)

edit: Changed she to he/she/it/they. Thanks Sunglass. I don't want to offend the musculinists (as opposed to the feminists) for using the universial "she"... buying it? anyone? anyone? Damn. Sorry, Hasty, if you are a guy... I got "lady vibes" coming from you.

I fixed the gender slip... And then I realized Sunglass wasn't giving me a heads up, but rather was voting for me. :lol: I thought we given up gender slips as FM indiactors.

What was that game this summer where that happened? Wasn't it a serial killer game? Was Piper Bolton as the Serial Killer? Someone almost got lynched for it (it wasn't our dear mod was it?) and it turned out innocent. Perhaps I am getting my games confused. Hehehe

And Sunglass... in my mind you are a she as well. Perhaps you'll give me another vote for that. ;)

So he seems terribly over-anxious and fake-jolly at the start, as if he knows he needs to post and feels really self-conscious and keen to make sure nothing he says is taken the wrong way.

I must say I quite liked his responses to Lefford though (he seems more relaxed):

Well gee, Lefford, how FMish of you to suggest a "connection" and to claim a post looked "funny", yet not back that up with ... well... with anything, really. Please, do tell!

:rolleyes:

He has yet to say anything of substance. Take this as Caron poking Norcross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to sum up, my lynch preferences at this moment are:

(1) Lefford

(2) Upcliff

(3) Norcross

(4) Ambrose

I wouldn't be devastated to see Elsham go, but I'm currently betting on him being innocent.

By the way, there are two many orange avatars. I keep confusing myself with Ambrose, which is annoying, since I don't suspect myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(1) Lefford

(2) Upcliff

(3) Norcross

(4) Ambrose

I'd prefer to see Upcliff stick around for another day. If he's an FM that's still suspicious enough to lynch tomorrow, then we'll have twice as much information to work with to find a partner, especially given that he's quite active.

Otherwise, my list is basically the same as yours, except with Jast added onto it. I suppose an Ambrose lynch would provide the most information. Lefford hasn't really made enough sense for me to draw connections between him and other players.

I'd definitely recommend against passing up a lynch right now. With the possibility for a healer, vig, and guard, there's plenty of chances later down the line when we can turn the even into odd. Right now, we should take advantage of the CF and at least lower the suspect pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't vote people off for their number of posts. I don't like when people who can contribute only a few posts, use them with tunnel vision.
I don't count two of 7 posts as "tunnel vision". And I certainly don't count ranking everyone in order I'd like to see them lynched as a post "dedicated to your not liking Upcliff's case", which is what you said.

I can't tell, do you believe there is a connection between Lake and Upcliff? Or do you just believe Upcliff is guilty of capitalizing on Lake's vote? I can't see anyway both of them would be guilty, and Upcliff doesn't seem sloppy enough to try to bandwagon on Lake's vote.
No, I think only one of them is guilty, but I'm more suspicious of Upcliff than I am of Lake.

If you thought it was a good case, why do you absolve Prester for dropping it so quickly and for being pointedly inconsistent?
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.

And if you think the case on Elesham is good, do you really see Lake or Upcliff, or both, as being his partner and sloppy enough to step up to defend him like that?
*sigh* First, they weren't defending him, just going after his main accuser. And yes, I can see partners doing something like that, especially in a CF game where everything is WIFOM-able. And finally, my suspicion of Upcliff or Lake is not at all tied to me suspecting Elesham. Suspect all of them, yes, but I've never said I think they're all evil and therefore partners.

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.

I'm not tunnel-visioned, you see. I have multiple suspects, independent of each other.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×