AGOT Mafia 46.5

[House Connington]

And hence my point. He did not say anything about me, he was suspicious of you the entire time. The ENTIRE time. You did nothing different. And yet, he's reasoning his change of vote that you've done something that changed his mind.

However, perhaps it's the fact that it's the same when focused on someone else as it is when focused on you is what made Elesham change his mind on me? doesn't require a change in my playstyle to change how people view it.

edit: Oops, cut off half my quote of myself first try :-p

[House Wythers]

edit: Oops, cut off half my quote of myself first try :-p

What changed his focus then? Is it that hard to give the reasoning for it?

[House Connington]

What changed his focus then? Is it that hard to give the reasoning for it?

It was his defense, it was his reasoning, it was nonrelated things he has posted in the meantime. The more he posts, the more information I have to look at about him.

[House Wythers]

So, in other words, it was your entire posting history. In other words, it could be ANYTHING.

And hence, is why I want specifics.

Thank you for proving my point.

Edit: I should mean your entire posting history since his last post.

[House Connington]

So, in other words, it was your entire posting history. In other words, it could be ANYTHING.

And hence, is why I want specifics.

Thank you for proving my point.

Edit: I should mean your entire posting history since his last post.

It's day one. Feelings and gut instinct rules. He's hardly going to be able to come out with a point by point analysis of why he finds me slightly less guilty, is he? And if he did, it'd be forced.

[House Mooton]

Ambrose - I think what it is is that Prester has managed to look more convincingly innocent than you, though I am becoming increasingly convinced you're probably both innocent.

One of the things which continues to keep me suspicious of you Ambrose, is that you seem to have kept things a bit too close to your chest in terms of sharing your feelings about other players. While it's understandable that you are putting up a fight not to be lynched, if you are innocent you can help your team after death, by giving us some known-innocent views to go back and look at. On the other hand, if you are evil, you really don't want to give us any kind of clues that way, so the fact you are focusing entirely on Prester makes it look like you are being careful not to leave a trail.

So (and this goes for Prester too, since he's the other candidate and hasn't commented on a lot of players), can you tell us how you rate some of the other players in this game in terms of suspiciousness?

Edit: missed out a 'not'!

[House Sunglass]

Checking in. My preference is to lynch Ambrose. I don't like how he was wishy washy about Prester, I don't like how he caved into the pressure to vote for Prester, and I don't like how he is so desperate right now.

Also, while I understand that he wants people to give reasons for why they are voting for him, I find it difficult to believe that he doesn't understand that, at a certain point, saying 'I suspect you more out of the 2 viable lynch options, and I want to make sure we get a lynch' is a good enough reason.

[House Wythers]

Ambrose - I think what it is is that Prester has managed to look more convincingly innocent than you, though I am becoming increasingly convinced you're probably both innocent.

One of the things which continues to keep me suspicious of you Ambrose, is that you seem to have kept things a bit too close to your chest in terms of sharing your feelings about other players. While it's understandable that you are putting up a fight to be lynched, if you are innocent you can help your team after death, by giving us some known-innocent views to go back and look at. On the other hand, if you are evil, you really don't want to give us any kind of clues that way, so the fact you are focusing entirely on Prester makes it look like you are being careful not to leave a trail.

So (and this goes for Prester too, since he's the other candidate and hasn't commented on a lot of players), can you tell us how you rate some of the other players in this game in terms of suspiciousness?

Now you see people, this is what I'm talking about. Thank you. This is the type of stuff I want.

I can't argue the close to the chest I suppose, because that is how I pplay. When I see a person that I think is FM, I focus on them. However, I keep my mind open. I am cautious however, and it showed with the Prester situation. I should have putting

I began to look at other cases, you were one that I was looking at. You then came back and started talking, and I've back down. However, your timing is something I don't like.

I don't like Elesham's change of heart so dramatically. You are suspicious of one person, then dramatically change. Now if he would have said, "I find Ambrose to be FM because ..." or, "I think that Prester is more innocent is because...". Hell even, "I'm doing this because we need to get a lynch in". But he said that Prester had changed his mind, but not reasoning why. No reasoning whatsoever. I find that FM material.

With that said, I think that one of the two are FM. And I will say it till I get lynched, I think is Prester. I'm being voted for not committing, I understand that. And I'm going to pay for it and hurt team Innocent in the process. But my death will help in pointing out the hypocracy of players like Elesham and Prester. Prester jumped to a bandwagon he saw forming in me. He jumped on a bandwagon when you pointed out Elesham's little supposed "slip". I've been vocal my suspicions, but Prester has changed his suspicion to whatever helped him more at any time.

The fact that Elesham also took a shot at me for asking for reasoning is also retarded.

More thoughts in a minute, I have to show my apartment in a minute.

[House Corbray]

Ok, I think it's time to end this. (Day One and this back and forth between Prester and Ambrose.)

Sorry Ambrose that you're feeling frustrated--I can understand. But such is the game. Anyway, I laid out reasons why I'd consider voting you back the night before last (my internet's too slow for links, but they were: lots of talking about Prester and game theory but nothing else, thus "playing safe" because you don't offend anyone or leave any links behind, and saying you'd make a case that you never did, which I always find suspicious. Not much, but enough for Day One.) And I have't been able to get any of my suspects lynched (though I really only made efforts with Norcross and Upcliff, due largely to the board failures and my internet access issues). And you all know my stance on Prester. So yes, I'm going to vote you out as a lynch I could support (though not drive).

I'll be placing my vote very shortly (I don't want to risk the board or my shitty internet crashing again), but since you're around, I'd like to give you an opportunity for any last thoughts.

(And Upcliff, I thought Norcorss was a viable lynch--several people had said they were suspicious of him. So I don't have a problem with Uller leaving his vote there.)

Edit: Cross-posted with a bunch of people. Damn slow internet. Ambrose, how long is "a minute"?

[House Wythers]

Ok, I think it's time to end this. (Day One and this back and forth between Prester and Ambrose.)

Sorry Ambrose that you're feeling frustrated--I can understand. But such is the game. Anyway, I laid out reasons why I'd consider voting you back the night before last (my internet's too slow for links, but they were: lots of talking about Prester and game theory but nothing else, thus "playing safe" because you don't offend anyone or leave any links behind, and saying you'd make a case that you never did, which I always find suspicious. Not much, but enough for Day One.) And I have't been able to get any of my suspects lynched (though I really only made efforts with Norcross and Upcliff, due largely to the board failures and my internet access issues). And you all know my stance on Prester. So yes, I'm going to vote you out as a lynch I could support (though not drive).

I'll be placing my vote very shortly (I don't want to risk the board or my shitty internet crashing again), but since you're around, I'd like to give you an opportunity for any last thoughts.

(And Upcliff, I thought Norcorss was a viable lynch--several people had said they were suspicious of him. So I don't have a problem with Uller leaving his vote there.)

Can you at least wait a minute until I show my apartment off, I'd love to get last thoughts off.

[House Mooton]

Ah Upcliff, I know this is an odd time to ask, but there seem to be quite divergent opinions on Lefford, and seeing as you are the expert on inconsistencies, I would be interested to hear your views on him.

[House Connington]

Sunglass is about to finish it anyway, making my point of view useless (as the night may well change it anyway), but as i said before, I still think that if you look back to who was voting for me and who was defending me, we'll find an FM in both camps.

I'm not entirely sure who yet, so I'm hoping the night will give me more meat to look at. I still don't particularly like Elesham, and I'm really hoping Ambrose is guilty, but neither of these stances are suprising, they are my two votes :-p

[House Wythers]

Checking in. My preference is to lynch Ambrose. I don't like how he was wishy washy about Prester, I don't like how he caved into the pressure to vote for Prester, and I don't like how he is so desperate right now.

Also, while I understand that he wants people to give reasons for why they are voting for him, I find it difficult to believe that he doesn't understand that, at a certain point, saying 'I suspect you more out of the 2 viable lynch options, and I want to make sure we get a lynch' is a good enough reason.

I was suspicious the entire time, don't put words in my mouth. The only thing I weas wishy washy on was the fact that he refused to change his style, and considering I've seen head strong players, I was trying to get a read on him. But Sarsfield pointed out a counterpoint, and coupled with the fact that I had to leave, I put my vote down.

Yes I do. It's one thing to say it, it's another to provide reasoning. Elesham specifically said that Prester did SOMETHING to change his mind. There are plenty of people aroudn now that would ensure a lynch of either me or Prester. Instead, he says absolutely nothing about what changed his mind. He then took a shot saying that asking for reasoning makes me look worse. So apparently because I'm getting lynched, I can't ask for reasoning?

[House Connington]

I was suspicious the entire time, don't put words in my mouth. The only thing I weas wishy washy on was the fact that he refused to change his style, and considering I've seen head strong players, I was trying to get a read on him. But Sarsfield pointed out a counterpoint, and coupled with the fact that I had to leave, I put my vote down.

Yes I do. It's one thing to say it, it's another to provide reasoning. Elesham specifically said that Prester did SOMETHING to change his mind. There are plenty of people aroudn now that would ensure a lynch of either me or Prester. Instead, he says absolutely nothing about what changed his mind. He then took a shot saying that asking for reasoning makes me look worse. So apparently because I'm getting lynched, I can't ask for reasoning?

Right, so the fact my style hasn't changed made you think i was innocent... And yet you still make a point that my style hasn't changed a few posts ago... While at the same time pointing a dying finger at me?

For the benefit of team innocent, why exactly has my unchanging play style gone from making you think I'm innocent to guilty?

[House Wythers]

Right, so the fact my style hasn't changed made you think i was innocent... And yet you still make a point that my style hasn't changed a few posts ago... While at the same time pointing a dying finger at me?

For the benefit of team innocent, why exactly has my unchanging play style gone from making you think I'm innocent to guilty?

There's a difference here. I'm saying that the problem with headstrong players such as your self, that despite saying horrible suspicious things, that you stick with your guns. You are probably the hardest to get a read on, because of the fact that you will do the same thing no matter WHAT the situation. However, it doesn't not indicate you are innocent or FM. When it came time, I felt comfortable voting for you given the circumstances.

[House Corbray]

Can you at least wait a minute until I show my apartment off, I'd love to get last thoughts off.

Are these:

I was suspicious the entire time, don't put words in my mouth. The only thing I weas wishy washy on was the fact that he refused to change his style, and considering I've seen head strong players, I was trying to get a read on him. But Sarsfield pointed out a counterpoint, and coupled with the fact that I had to leave, I put my vote down.

Yes I do. It's one thing to say it, it's another to provide reasoning. Elesham specifically said that Prester did SOMETHING to change his mind. There are plenty of people aroudn now that would ensure a lynch of either me or Prester. Instead, he says absolutely nothing about what changed his mind. He then took a shot saying that asking for reasoning makes me look worse. So apparently because I'm getting lynched, I can't ask for reasoning?

them?

If so...ugh. If not, then please write them instead of restating the same thing over and over. Which is to say, I'll wait if I feel you actually need me to wait, but if you have time to post this stuff repeatedly, then I don't think you do and are just stalling, which I'm not ok with.

[House Wythers]

Ok, I think it's time to end this. (Day One and this back and forth between Prester and Ambrose.)

Sorry Ambrose that you're feeling frustrated--I can understand. But such is the game. Anyway, I laid out reasons why I'd consider voting you back the night before last (my internet's too slow for links, but they were: lots of talking about Prester and game theory but nothing else, thus "playing safe" because you don't offend anyone or leave any links behind, and saying you'd make a case that you never did, which I always find suspicious. Not much, but enough for Day One.) And I have't been able to get any of my suspects lynched (though I really only made efforts with Norcross and Upcliff, due largely to the board failures and my internet access issues). And you all know my stance on Prester. So yes, I'm going to vote you out as a lynch I could support (though not drive).

I'll be placing my vote very shortly (I don't want to risk the board or my shitty internet crashing again), but since you're around, I'd like to give you an opportunity for any last thoughts.

(And Upcliff, I thought Norcorss was a viable lynch--several people had said they were suspicious of him. So I don't have a problem with Uller leaving his vote there.)

Edit: Cross-posted with a bunch of people. Damn slow internet. Ambrose, how long is "a minute"?

Also, just noticed this, I'm letting them look at that themselves. At this point, I'm getting tired of this. I'm being voted more for the fact that I'm not Prester then for my actions, and I dontr' like it, but I apparently won't change anyone's mind, despite there being several people here. I'm getting lynched anyway at deadline due to there being 7 votes.

Please look at Prester tomorrow. Don't let him play the strong headed stupid card for too long, it'll come and bite you all in the ass.

[House Wythers]

Are these:

them?

If so...ugh. If not, then please write them instead of restating the same thing over and over. Which is to say, I'll wait if I feel you actually need me to wait, but if you have time to post this stuff repeatedly, then I don't think you do and are just stalling, which I'm not ok with.

I'm responding as quickly as I can here, it's hard to keep up with all these posts.

[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.

7 votes for Ambrose ( Jast, Prester, Upcliff, Norcross, Caron, Sarsfield, Elesham)

5 votes for Prester ( Lake, Ambrose, Lefford, Inchfield, Uller)

1 vote for Norcross ( Sunglass)

1 vote for Lefford ( Hasty)

There is 1 hour and 22 minutes remaining in Day 1!

[House Sunglass]

(And Upcliff, I thought Norcorss was a viable lynch--several people had said they were suspicious of him. So I don't have a problem with Uller leaving his vote there.)

There were 2 hours left*, and he had 2 of the 8 votes needed on him. In the hour prior to Uller's post, 2 other people had posted - Norcross himself, and Caron (who said that he was willing to vote for Norcross if the lynch moved that way, but that he wasn't certain he'd actually be around at the deadline to do it). There was no evidence to indicate that a bunch of people were going to show up and change the momentum of the lynch.

*(I'm sticking with the '2 hours left' interpretation. My board clock is set to central time, and it says the post came at 9:02 a.m. The day was supposed to end at 11 a.m. central time. Uller, are you sure your board clock isn't set to central time as well, thus causing the confusion over this issue?)

I don't buy the argument that Norcross was a more viable lynch option at that time than Hasty (the person Inchfield left his vote on). Not if there were only 2 hours left, and only a couple of players were even posting in the thread. Neither one was a viable option, given the votes on Ambrose and Prester, the level of activity in the thread and the amount of time left in the day.