AGOT Mafia 46.5

[House Tyrell]

As I said before I went to bed, I have two cases. One is that Uller is Upcliff's partner, the other is that Norcross is. I feel WAY more strongly about Norcross because of the day 2 lynch.

I will consider Sarsfield or Elesham if someone can present a reason why the case I made is not strong, and a better case for them.

I do not mesh with Sunglass or Hasty's playstyle or cases this game, but I have no personal reason to doubt their claims.

[Lady Gaga]

Okay, so I reread Inchfield. This was done in bits and pieces over three days, so it may be a bit fragmented, but it ought to make sense.

Early game stuff is all generic early game stuff that I don't care about. His behavior in relation to Ambrose is a bit scummy. It goes from wishy-washy, early Day 1, keeping-the-options-open style of opinion and an "I don't buy" statement. He's later unwilling to cast a catalyst vote on either Prester/Ambrose, which is pretty suspicious as far as suspicious goes. Why wouldn't he cast a vote, if not to keep his options open?

I can't get a firm read one way or the other on Ambrose yet. Disagreed with Prester, but apparently not suspicious enough to cast a vote. Worth keeping an eye on, but has been playing it close to the vest so far.

And the vote on Ambrose I don't buy. Ambrose disagreed with Prester. He never voted for Prester, let alone made a case on him. I'm not sure I understand the motivation behind this post-and-vote, and it rings a bit of a token contribution.

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.

That's about as far as I'd go for an FM partner in a CF game, and really as far as anyone'd go. He later lays a vote (that'd be difficult to back out of) on Prester.

The roots of his case on Hasty, way back on Day 1, rely on Hasty voting Prester as a set-up to vote out Upcliff later. This could be considered a defense of Upcliff and, more likely, an attempt to deflect attention off of Ambrose. Until yesterday, he did not say anything substantial to Upcliff. Early Day 1, he does say:

Upcliff's arguments are well laid out thus far, and he backed it up with a vote. Not much to argue with, unless he becomes tunneled in on pushing Prester.

Make of that what you will. I make nothing of it myself. It's about as non-thoughtful as a few sentences can possibly get.

Inchfield attacks Sunglass (who's busy going after Upcliff, duh), votes him, continues the attack, but removes vote when the vig reveal comes out.

He goes back to doing rereads. Provides a post-by-post recount of me (I did not actually participate in the House discussion, just fyi). Concludes that I am possibly an FM, but there's not enough proof to incriminate me. How... enlightening. I think that was everyone's opinion of everyone at that point in time. He rereads Uller, but has to rush off, so no conclusions.

Inchfield is the fourth vote on Upcliff, complete with a longwinded case. As the fourth vote, it's not like he was the first to get the ball rolling. In fact, as the fourth out of five, I'd say he's showing up just as the party's ending.

Given the way WJ behaved, I think he knew what he'd do and he'd informed his remaining partner. This is pure WIFOM, of course, but just ask yourself: if you were an FM and pissed off at the game, wouldn't you at least make sure your remaining partner wouldn't just be left out to hang? Inchfield overjustifies his vote on Upcliff imo. You don't need to make an entire case and reasoned analysis when you're slapping on the fourth vote. Maybe it's just because I'm a lazy bum, but I sure wouldn't bother. I believe there's a good chance that he was severing ties here.

Upcliff's FM claim comes about an hour after Inchfield's vote. I do not believe he'd have done that unless he knew his partner was not, well, the likes of Norcross and under heavy suspicion.

With seven players remaining, I believe Sunglass and Hasty are innocent. There exists the possibility that WJ and Hasty set up the entire thing as a massive distancing attempt, but seriously now? I don't think so. I'm innocent, just fyi. While this is WIFOM, I do think Norcross is too obvious a lynch for today to actually be an FM. Elesham broke the tie between Prester and Ambrose when he definitely didn't have to, and I count that in his favor.

This leaves Inchfield and Uller. Quite frankly, I'm just more suspicious of Inchfield than Uller in general, but I'll be rereading Uller tonight. If he comes out giving me worse vibes than Inchy, that's where my vote will go. I'd vote for Norcross if you need the vote. We have a margin for error here, I think.

[House Tyrell]

Ok, I'm bored, so I'll bite and respond to this...case.

Edit: Sorry for my tone. I've had a bad day in general, but I still believe this to be 100% a terrible case that was fabricated out of and designed around a few things I did on day 1 that are indeed suspicious, and not out of the facts of all the lynches we have before us.

Okay, so I reread Inchfield. This was done in bits and pieces over three days, so it may be a bit fragmented, but it ought to make sense.

I wish it did make sense, then I probably wouldn't be so annoyed right now.

Early game stuff is all generic early game stuff that I don't care about. His behavior in relation to Ambrose is a bit scummy. It goes from wishy-washy, early Day 1, keeping-the-options-open style of opinion and an "I don't buy" statement. He's later unwilling to cast a catalyst vote on either Prester/Ambrose, which is pretty suspicious as far as suspicious goes. Why wouldn't he cast a vote, if not to keep his options open?

I didn't cast a vote for the reason I've given 1000 times now. I made a weak decision before going to work, 4 hours before the day 1 deadline, and it was a poor decision. I can accept this part of your case as reasonable, but it's not very much different from the analysis I gave of you.

That's about as far as I'd go for an FM partner in a CF game, and really as far as anyone'd go. He later lays a vote (that'd be difficult to back out of) on Prester.

Way to contradict yourself. That's as far as anyone would go to defend their partner, but there I am, laying a vote on Prester at the end of day. I'd like to point out, as I said, that the FM's know there's a coroner finder. Pushing Prester that late in the day would look bad no matter WHICH way the lynch ended up (Ambrose or Prester). You can WIFOM this forever though.

Still, why the fuck would I want to back out? I believed both to be innocent, and there was a lot to be learned from lynching Prester. Remember saying this?

I think Ambrose stands the best chance of being guilty. This being day one, the "best" chance is still laughably low, which makes lynching for information perhaps wiser. Knowing your CF result would allow us to analyze people in relationship to you, and everyone (even Jast, I think) has said something about you.

Count me in the same boat as Elesham. I'd vote Prester for a lynch

Sounds kind of similar to what I was saying before I voted Prester. That and the fact that I'd prefer a Norcross vote to voting either Ambrose or Prester. Well, on with your case...

The roots of his case on Hasty, way back on Day 1, rely on Hasty voting Prester as a set-up to vote out Upcliff later. This could be considered a defense of Upcliff and, more likely, an attempt to deflect attention off of Ambrose.

Are you serious? When I made that case on Hasty (day 1 cases I use just to get people to talk and get information out there before lynch time) you had an ALPHABETICAL vote on Ambrose, and Jast said he "liked his case the least". It wasn't until 4 hours later that you laid the real vote on Ambrose and it became an option.

Until yesterday, he did not say anything substantial to Upcliff. Early Day 1, he does say:

QUOTE Upcliff's arguments are well laid out thus far, and he backed it up with a vote. Not much to argue with, unless he becomes tunneled in on pushing Prester.

Make of that what you will. I make nothing of it myself. It's about as non-thoughtful as a few sentences can possibly get.

And yet here you are saying essentially the same thing.

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..

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I didn't find his play overly suspicious at that point. Neither did you. And yet I must be FM. Hypocritical much?

But wait, there's more!

Inchfield attacks Sunglass (who's busy going after Upcliff, duh), votes him, continues the attack, but removes vote when the vig reveal comes out.

I think you skipped the multiple times I earlier was at odds with Sunglass' view of the game and perhaps you noticed I get really frustrated when people do not look at the overall game, and just focus on one thing/person. Also, you're completely skimming over the part where I gave my VALID concerns about Sunglass. The only reason he dropped down my list was the vig claim.

He goes back to doing rereads. Provides a post-by-post recount of me (I did not actually participate in the House discussion, just fyi). Concludes that I am possibly an FM, but there's not enough proof to incriminate me. How... enlightening. I think that was everyone's opinion of everyone at that point in time. He rereads Uller, but has to rush off, so no conclusions.

I concluded that you're a possible partner of Ambrose, yes, but not my most likely. Norcross was still my most likely, I just didn't have time to get to the conclusions.

Here is where you entirely avoid the Lefford lynch and its implications, but that's ok, we'll move on to your next point.

Inchfield is the fourth vote on Upcliff, complete with a longwinded case. As the fourth vote, it's not like he was the first to get the ball rolling. In fact, as the fourth out of five, I'd say he's showing up just as the party's ending.

Holy fucking wow. Longwinded case? I didn't realize making a LOGICAL fucking case and voting for someone was a bad thing. I thought that's how this game is played.

Given the way WJ behaved, I think he knew what he'd do and he'd informed his remaining partner. This is pure WIFOM, of course, but just ask yourself: if you were an FM and pissed off at the game, wouldn't you at least make sure your remaining partner wouldn't just be left out to hang?

Or maybe he thinks we've already got them (him and his partner) pegged, is pissed off about Sunglass' tenacious refusal to even consider Upcliff's innocence, and is calling it quits.

Inchfield overjustifies his vote on Upcliff imo. You don't need to make an entire case and reasoned analysis when you're slapping on the fourth vote. Maybe it's just because I'm a lazy bum, but I sure wouldn't bother. I believe there's a good chance that he was severing ties here.

Did you bother reading any of the votes before mine? Did any of them have a case attached? Did any of them have anything resembling logic involved? I see Hasty doing whatever the hell Sunglass wants him to, I see Prester waffling around like he's made of EGO-goodness. And I see Sunglass doing what Sunglass has done all day.

How in the bloody bodily discharge is it considered "slapping a fourth vote on"?

I'm sorry that I decided to spend 6 hours yesterday wading through my notes and settling upon three top suspects (Upcliff, Norcross, distant third Uller).

So yeah, this is the most absofuckinglutely rediculous part of a case I've ever read in a mafia game. It is suspcious to analyze the game and vote for your top suspect? Well, then I may as well just be lynched every time I play this game, because that's how I thought the game is played.

Upcliff's FM claim comes about an hour after Inchfield's vote. I do not believe he'd have done that unless he knew his partner was not, well, the likes of Norcross and under heavy suspicion.

Or maybe he did it because his partner was under suspicion and he was furious for obvious reasons. We can WIFOM all day, but I laid out a pretty damn strong case. He was then one vote from death. Somehow this points to me being evil. OKEY DOKEY!

With seven players remaining, I believe Sunglass and Hasty are innocent. There exists the possibility that WJ and Hasty set up the entire thing as a massive distancing attempt, but seriously now? I don't think so. I'm innocent, just fyi. Elesham broke the tie between Prester and Ambrose when he definitely didn't have to, and I count that in his favor.

I said all of those things in my analysis, except for that blurb about Hasty and WJ.

While this is WIFOM, I do think Norcross is too obvious a lynch for today to actually be an FM. This leaves Inchfield and Uller. Quite frankly, I'm just more suspicious of Inchfield than Uller in general, but I'll be rereading Uller tonight. If he comes out giving me worse vibes than Inchy, that's where my vote will go.

He's too obvious to be an FM? I'm going to go slit my throat in frustration.

With seven players and 1 FM, we have three opportunities to lynch. Please, please puhhhhhleeze kill the "too obvious" one first, and if that's wrong, I'm obviously the FM, so kill me tomorrow. I'll even throw the first vote on myself if I'm wrong about Norcross. Make sense?

[House Frey]

Alrighty then. I am here. I feel better than I did, but I still don't feel great.

Unfortunately there isn't much Norcross love going on around here. Sure there is a lot of Norcross hate and a little Norcross ambivilance, but no Norcross love.

It has become apparent that I am the only one who thinks that Hasty used a reveal to get out of a lynch. Fine. No Hasty lych.

And although I think Elesham has done FMy things (twisting my words to make me appear to have said thing I didn't say) but I have decided to read Elesham, Sarsfeild, Inchfield, and Uller before I cast a vote.

Feel free to twist that to mean whatever you want it to.

[House Ashford]

Alrighty then. I am here. I feel better than I did, but I still don't feel great.

Unfortunately there isn't much Norcross love going on around here. Sure there is a lot of Norcross hate and a little Norcross ambivilance, but no Norcross love.

It has become apparent that I am the only one who thinks that Hasty used a reveal to get out of a lynch. Fine. No Hasty lych.

And although I think Elesham has done FMy things (twisting my words to make me appear to have said thing I didn't say) but I have decided to read Elesham, Sarsfeild, Inchfield, and Uller before I cast a vote.

Feel free to twist that to mean whatever you want it to.

Here's a twist!

Where the hell have I ever "twisted" your words? You're taking me criticizing things and turning that into "twisting words"?? This just gets more and more hilariously OMGUSy as it goes.

[Lady Gaga]

Don't worry about the tone, Inchfield. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Are you serious? <snip> It wasn't until 4 hours later that you laid the real vote on Ambrose and it became an option.

Yes, I'm serious. As for the Ambrose-not-yet-an-option thing, my mistake. That's what happens when you hit "Find All Posts" and only look through the surrounding posts.

Also, you're completely skimming over the part where I gave my VALID concerns about Sunglass.

<snip>

Here is where you entirely avoid the Lefford lynch and its implications, but that's ok, we'll move on to your next point.

Unlike you, I don't feel the urge to list every single post made by the number and describe their contents. In fact, I actively try to avoid doing that as reading through those sorts of posts is a personal pet peeve. I'm sure the other players can read fine on their own and have paid enough attention to keep track of what you've said without my help. I see no need to insult the intelligence and commitment to this game by assuming they haven't.

You did nothing I found suspicious or innocentish during the Lefford lynch; therefore, there was nothing worth mentioning. Similarly, your valid concerns rang neither innocent nor scummy, so who cares? An FM could've made those remarks. An innocent could've made those remarks. I can't draw meaningful conclusions out of them, so why bother commenting on them at all? In case you didn't notice, I chose to analyze your connection to Ambrose and Upcliff. It's my belief that at this point, the simplest and surest method to nail the final FM is through their partners. Your thoughts on the vig don't really factor into the picture.

Or maybe he thinks we've already got them (him and his partner) pegged, is pissed off about Sunglass' tenacious refusal to even consider Upcliff's innocence, and is calling it quits.

Sometimes I have my doubts, but at the end of the day, I think WJ's mature enough to not throw a hissy fit and storm out of a game just because he's about to lose with Sunglass as an added thorn in the side. To be frank, I don't think any of the mafia players here would do that. I may find myself disappointed in spoiler heaven after this game, but I hope I won't be.

How in the bloody bodily discharge is it considered "slapping a fourth vote on"?

It was the fourth vote. Therefore you slapped on a fourth vote. ...That's really all there is to it. Four, as in the number that comes after three. I'm pretty sure I'm missing your point here, so if you'd explain it again, that'd be great.

I'm sorry that I decided to spend 6 hours yesterday wading through my notes and settling upon three top suspects (Upcliff, Norcross, distant third Uller).

My apologies, but six hours of wading through notes does not entitle you my trust.

With seven players and 1 FM, we have three opportunities to lynch. Please, please puhhhhhleeze kill the "too obvious" one first, and if that's wrong, I'm obviously the FM, so kill me tomorrow. Make sense?

There are seven of us. Four votes to lynch. You don't need me vote to lynch Norcross. That being said, we have three lynches left. Because I've defaulted myself, Sunglass, Hasty as CI and Elesham as PI, my current list of suspects is three people long, those people being Inchfield, Uller, and Norcross, and that's in order of suspicion. Quite frankly, I don't really care what order we lynch them in. We have the time. If everyone wants to compromise on Norcross today, then I'm fine with that.

[House Tyrell]

Don't worry about the tone, Inchfield. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Good, because I actually felt bad about getting worked up.

Yes, I'm serious. As for the Ambrose-not-yet-an-option thing, my mistake. That's what happens when you hit "Find All Posts" and only look through the surrounding posts.

Unlike you, I don't feel the urge to list every single post made by the number and describe their contents. In fact, I actively try to avoid doing that as reading through those sorts of posts is a personal pet peeve. I'm sure the other players can read fine on their own and have paid enough attention to keep track of what you've said without my help. I see no need to insult the intelligence and commitment to this game by assuming they haven't.

I don't mind if people miss things, but you took the time to make a case, I just through I'd point out something false about it.

And I don't feel the urge to do that, it was just a copy paste of the notes I made. And I don't find it insulting to bring attention to things in a way that might help people view thigns in a different light.

You did nothing I found suspicious or innocentish during the Lefford lynch; therefore, there was nothing worth mentioning.

My point is that you're glossing over a VERY important event in this game because you're choosing to focus on me.

Similarly, your valid concerns rang neither innocent nor scummy, so who cares? An FM could've made those remarks. An innocent could've made those remarks. I can't draw meaningful conclusions out of them, so why bother commenting on them at all? In case you didn't notice, I chose to analyze your connection to Ambrose and Upcliff. It's my belief that at this point, the simplest and surest method to nail the final FM is through their partners. Your thoughts on the vig don't really factor into the picture.

I care, because you're painting my vote of Sunglass in a light that suits YOU and your preconcieved notion, while ignoring the possibility that my valid concerns are what lead to the vote.

Sometimes I have my doubts, but at the end of the day, I think WJ's mature enough to not throw a hissy fit and storm out of a game just because he's about to lose with Sunglass as an added thorn in the side. To be frank, I don't think any of the mafia players here would do that. I may find myself disappointed in spoiler heaven after this game, but I hope I won't be.

So you're thinking he staged an exit

It was the fourth vote. Therefore you slapped on a fourth vote. ...That's really all there is to it. Four, as in the number that comes after three. I'm pretty sure I'm missing your point here, so if you'd explain it again, that'd be great.

My point, my dear, is that it wasn't a "slappy" type vote. It was the conclusion of careful analysis. Maybe you feel comfortable voting on a whim after three people left no good reason for their votes. I don't. It's not like we were working with a huge margain for error, and no one had presented a very good reason to vote Upcliff.

My apologies, but six hours of wading through notes does not entitle you my trust.

Nor should it, but you said "you don't need to make an entire case and reasoned analysis when you're slapping on the fourth vote." My point is, I did that because I thought the other three votes were very, VERY weak, and if I'm going to "slap a fourth vote" on someone on day 4, there better be a damn good reason for it.

There are seven of us. Four votes to lynch. You don't need me vote to lynch Norcross. That being said, we have three lynches left. Because I've defaulted myself, Sunglass, Hasty as CI and Elesham as PI, my current list of suspects is three people long, those people being Inchfield, Uller, and Norcross, and that's in order of suspicion. Quite frankly, I don't really care what order we lynch them in. We have the time. If everyone wants to compromise on Norcross today, then I'm fine with that.

Even though, yes there is cause to be suspicious of me, your case is pretty speculative and not very strong. You picked the suspect first based on vibes, and over the last four days, made the case second. That's a pretty narrow view, whereas I think my view of the big picture lead down the right road to take on THIS day.

[House Corbray]

Once again, sorry for my absence. It was a mistake to try to play this game, and I'm sorry for any time spent waiting for me to respond or whatever. I've learned my lesson.

I'm going to do a big reread right now. Right now, I still think Norcross looks very bad (he and Whiskeyjack were working in such obvious partnerships--on the same side of the Ambrose lynch, Lefford lynch, suspicions of me, doubting Hasty's claim and trying to get him lynched, and working off of preconceived notions of FM behavior to accuse everyone while making sure they weren't in those areas themselves, plus it felt to me like his lynch was deflected at the end of Day Two). I've been growing increasinly suspicious of Sarsfield as well, and I think they're my two favorite lynches right now.

Uller I don't have much of a read on. I had thought he was innocent, but haven't been getting reinforcing feelings of that., so right now I don't know. My suspicions of Elesham have dropped to the point where I also put him in the "I don't know" category, and Inchfield...eh. I'll need to read through the stuff he and Sarsfield are going through again.

And Hasty I'm still convinced is innocent.

[House Dondarrion]

Today, I'm still for a Norcross lynch. Now that we know Upcliff was pushing for the Prester voters to die, the people who were on Prester with me have all gone down considerably on my suspect list. So, aside from Sunglass and Hasty as my innocents I trust, I'd put Inchfield higher up than before.

That leaves: Elesham, Norcross and Sarsfield.

Not sure where the Elesham love is coming from. Unless I missed something, he strikes me as a plausible partner for Ambrose and Upcliff. Don't want to CI him yet, anyway.

Sarsfield hasn't had enough attention. Nothing leaps to mind as especially incriminating for me off the top of my head yet though, so I'll have to look at this once I get home. I have no real reason to trust him either.

Both Elesham and Sarsfield are players I need to look more at rather than players I have anything concrete on. If I were forced to vote right now, it would be Norcross. The post that originally sparked my suspicions looks much worse now that we know Upcliff was guilty. The Lefford lynch was derailed from becoming a Norcross lynch. He's definitely the most suspicious to me right now

[House Tyrell]

If i am MIA for awhile, I'm sorry. The lower floors of my apartment building are on fire, and we're kinda stuck for now, and have no idea what the firefighters are doing because...well, they're down there and we're up here.

[House Tyrell]

Just to clarify, life isn't in danger, it's contained, but internet may go missing

[House Corbray]

As far as Sarsfield goes...

His early interactions with Ambrose don't look that great--he lays an alphabetical vote on him but then says he (Sarsfield) buys his (Ambrose's) case on me because of the sunglasses. It's that weird behavior--"I'm voting you but I agree with you haha"--that I tend to associate with FM partners.

Sarsfield was also on the anti-Prester train (though really, who wasn't), but never votes him (leaving his alphabetical vote on Ambrose), and later says he thinks he's a headstrong innocent. Interestingly though, he says that Lake is overeager in twisting Prester's words (this was obviously after Lake's big case), but doesn't mention anything about Upcliff or Ambrose, who were both also persuing Prester. And, in that same post (here it is), he says

If you'd still like to accuse him of being FMish, I'd recommend pointing out how quick he was to drop the case after everyone else called it utter BS. Of course, he may have just realized that his case was utter BS as well.

which I don't like. If you think the guy's innocent, why add this sentence and fuel the fire?

He echoed Jast in saying that Ambrose hadn't voted Prester and then re-voted Ambrose (without ever having removed his original vote). It was in response to this post that Ambrose said he was working on another case right now. This does have that sort of set-up feel--make a point someone has already made against your partner, have them address you, and then move on. Sarsfield provides Ambrose with a reason to vote Prester (rather, Amb said he wasn't voting P because "he hadn't changed his playstyle" and Sars says "duh, changing playstyle would be suicide if you were an FM", so Amb says "true" and votes Prester.

Meanwhile, of course, Sars keeps quasi-defending Prester, which is really odd. Again, why keep knocking down reasons he could be innocent and giving reasons he could be evil if you think he's innocent?

And then he turns around and votes Uller, saying he hasn't forgotten Ambrose, but Uller's a low poster. Next post, he says he'd like to keep Upcliff around "for another day" (despite earlier mentioned gut rumblings), and revotes Ambrose. In the morning, when he next posts (and the deadline was about 2 hours away or whatever), he once again defends Upcliff, and also says that Upcliff "got the ball rolling" on the Ambrose lynch (in response to Hasty's theory). Now, like I said, I don't think a "pressure vote" which was then ignored in favor of posting gigantic posts at me counts as getting the ball rolling, so I find this suspicious as well--Sars is basically making Upcliff's arguement for him (before the CF result is known, obviously).

He removes his vote later on, due to the board crashing and the deadline extension, but then puts it back on Ambrose, despite saying the more he thinks about it, the more he wants Prester lynched. At this point, yeah, it definitely feels like he wants to be on the Ambrose lynch if it's gonna happen, but doesn't really want the lynch to happen.

He doesn't do much during Day Two until the very end, during the mad scramble for a lynch. He quotes Upcliff's list of who to vote (the people who didn't vote Ambrose), but says he doesn't want to lynch Hasty unless he has to, and votes Lefford.

On Day Three, he agrees with Upcliff that Hasty's claim was pretty risk-free and it's something he (Sars) would do as FM, and later says he doubts the autenticity of Hasty's claim. (Upcliff was pursuing a Hasty-lynch at this time, and Hasty was going after Upcliff, so this looks like tag-teaming.)

Sarsfield is gone for the Upcliff lynch. He then uses this argument as a point against Inchfield (who was around and voted Upcliff, after writing a huge case):

Given the way WJ behaved, I think he knew what he'd do and he'd informed his remaining partner. This is pure WIFOM, of course, but just ask yourself: if you were an FM and pissed off at the game, wouldn't you at least make sure your remaining partner wouldn't just be left out to hang?

Yes, it is pure WIFOM. It's also pure "and there's no wine anywhere near me! See how clean I am!", which is reminiscent of the whole Lynch List (which Sars wasn't on, obviously)--define FM behavior and make sure you don't fit it, then go after those who do.

I also don't really like his current suspect list--Inchfield and Uller. Both those names are snagged from Upcliff's Lynch List...and he' still doing that annoying "I think Hasty's innocent, but there exists the possibility that's he's evil because..." thing.

His defense of Norcross ("too obvious!") also seems to apply to himself...and I'm starting to wonder if he's wanting to keep Nocross around to take the fall later. (If that makes sense--he's pushing for someone most of us have somewhere in the middle of our lists, because we can afford error right now, and when it comes down to the line, Norcross would still be around and he's very high on all of our lists (well, except Nocross's own list), so that would be an easy lynch to make happen. Meaning if we did it now and he's innocent, we'd be looking closer at everyone else, like Sarsfield.)

So...yeah. He looks pretty bad to me.

------------------

I'm very tired right now and don't have time to write a detailed case on Norcross. I'm also going to be exceedingly busy tomorrow, and highly doubt I'll be around until about this time. I'm really sorry about this.

[Magic Mirror]

I wouldn't mind lynching Norcross today. Sarsfield I haven't looked at that much, but in general, for some reason, I haven't suspected him as much as I have Norcross. It just seemed like such an obvious save of Norcross two days ago that I don't want to discount it as being too obvious. For one thing, Upcliff seemed pretty passionate at the end of the day yesterday. Dare I say it, but I don't think he was faking anything there. I think he really was well and truly pissed off and confessed in a fit of frustration with the game. I don't think there was a masterplan involved there because it was still pretty possible to get me lynched yesterday.

Maybe Norcross today and then I'll look at Sarsfield, but I prefer lynching Norcross today.

[Magic Mirror]

Er, since I forgot to vote there, Norcross.

[House Targaryen]

It is day 4.

7 players remain: Elesham, Hasty, Inchfield, Norcross, Sarsfield, Sunglass, Uller.

4 votes are needed for a conviction or to go to night.

2 votes for Norcross ( Inchfield, Hasty)

1 vote for Inchfield ( Sarsfield)

4 players have not voted: Elesham, Norcross, Sunglass, Uller.

You have about 31 hours left.

[Magic Mirror]

Um, I voted for Norcross, not Uller...

[House Dondarrion]

Ok, Sunglass has really kind of stolen my thunder here. I'm not that disappointed though as I have to say on reread I agree with most of their conclusions. Sarsfield fits very well indeed as a partner for Upcliff and there's some points that suggest he's an Ambrose partner as well.

I want to highlight this paragraph of Sunglass' case in particular:

He removes his vote later on, due to the board crashing and the deadline extension, but then puts it back on Ambrose, despite saying the more he thinks about it, the more he wants Prester lynched. At this point, yeah, it definitely feels like he wants to be on the Ambrose lynch if it's gonna happen, but doesn't really want the lynch to happen.

This strikes me as looking very bad in hindsight.

Over all, though, I think I'm still for Norcross. I'd really hate it if they were the FM and they somehow slipped through our grasp. Sarsfield is my second favourite choice though and not by much. I'll leave my vote off either of them for now as I want to hear a response to Sunglass' case.

I'll take a look at Elesham next.

[House Dondarrion]

Heh. Reread Elesham's posts. I actually feel reasonably good about them right now. There certainly aren't the big red flags that Sarsfield or Norcross have next to their name. I can't see that I'm likely to support their lynch barring some unforeseen twist in events.

[House Targaryen]

Uh, am I the only one that wants this game to continue? If not, can you guys please post something?

[Lady Gaga]

I will in an hour or so.