Jump to content

Archived

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

Mexal

AGOT Mafia 46.5

Recommended Posts

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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems rather perturbing to me that Prester is portraying himself as the innocent leader here.. instructing the vigilante, laying down ultimatums and dichotomies.. It's a strong standpoint that I think has ulterior motives, especially with the almost haphazard way he jumped at my throat, and then despite saying "it is going to take a lot for me to move this vote", backs down from the vote when he is called out on bad logic. I greatly dislike the apparent viewpoints behind his words and actions.

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ;)

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You get data from the vigilante kill though. Admittedly you don't get the same data as with a lynching, but a carefully chosen vigilante kill can give you plenty of information to work with regardless of the actual CF result. To suggest the vigilante kill gives no information but a lynch does is disingenuous.

I wasn't trying to imply it didn't. The person said that lynches were far worse then vig kills, and I disagreed. You aren't implying that more information comes from a vig kill then a lynch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remove Vote

Vote Elsham

Seriously. You're either stupid, an FM trying to seem too stupid to be an FM, or roled, but the worst at coding vigilante clues in the world.

So we either lose an innocent idiot, an FM, or an idiot innocent with the ability to then kill another innocent by mistake. It'll take a lot to make me move this vote.

PRESTER BADDIE PRESTER BADDIE!

I count a symp clue and a vigilante clue in one post, neither disguised. It's hard to change my mind when something screams "lynch me" that loudly.

I stand by my theory that he is either an FM, a symp or a vigilante. All three are dangerous to us, so I'd rather not have to worry about him.

You're a fool. You'd willingly want to lynch someone who could be a vigilante? They're dangerous to "us" alright, if by "us" you mean the FM. Vigilante is something that we need

So you didn't realise that you was claiming to not only be an FM, but also a symp and a vigilante? Are you really telling me THREE role clues were RANDOMLY included in the post?

One i can take. Two, maybe. Three?

So you didn't realize that you're blatantly and obviously putting words into his mouth by saying that he was claiming to be something, instead you're claiming it for him? Also, everyone knows that "clues" are always right all the time, especially when someone is joking around and having fun with a false post restriction. Either that or you're trying to find an easy lynch cuz, you know... You're an FM and all that jazz.

Why would we think he's innocent? And even if he is, we have the possibility of a vigilante. Aren't you at all worried that this guy may be able to kill someone at night, whatever side he's on?

"Dude, he might, like, be a vigilante. And maybe a pro-innocent vigilante. And then like, he might kill one of me and my buddies. We can't take the risk that he might be pro-innocent and kill one of us, so let's push to get him lynched!"

Why would an FM kill the vigilante, unless they were clearly hating on one of the FMs? They are, after all, equally likely (if not more so) to kill an innocent.

Personally, if i was a vigilante, the only person i'd ever consider killing is anyone who role revealed as vigilante. Unless of course we were left in a position where a vig kill was the only mathematical chance at winning.

BZZZZT! False! You'd be a foolish vigilante. There are points in a game where if you are a vigilante and you find someone to be blatantly scummy then killing them would be a good idea. Or, if you are forced to claim and need to verify yourself, then you kill someone who the innocents asks you to kill during the night in order to remove someone who seems to be an FM and to verify your role.

Please don't ever be a vigilante in a game I play. Ever.

See, that's where we differ. I see it as a suicide bomber, an unpredictable role i'd rather not have on my side, unless it was being filledby someone i trust.

And at the moment, I wouldn't trust him with it.

WHOA! HOLD ON STOP THE PRESSES.

Clarify this for me: You would willingly and knowingly lynch an innocent? AN INNOCENT WOULD NEVER EVER WILLINGLY LYNCH AN INNOCENT! ONLY AN FM WOULD WANT TO LYNCH AN INNOCENT! I can write a gigantic post as to why this would be, if you fail to see the obvious reasons why, you foolish man.

My vote is that you're an FM who was trying to get an easy lynch. You goin' down, boy. :smoking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't trying to imply it didn't.
Good to know.

The person said that lynches were far worse then vig kills, and I disagreed.
I said in the post you quoted that lynches were often as bad or worse than vigilante kills and that I found Prester's stance on vigilantes to be unconvincing for that reason. I certainly didn't say 'far worse', which implies that is always the case.

You aren't implying that more information comes from a vig kill then a lynch?
Certainly not always. But there are situations where a vigilante kill is substantially more valuable/informative than a lynch (which would occur a day later).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ;)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*snip*

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.

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

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.

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.

3 votes for Prester ( Elesham, Lake, Upcliff)

1 vote for Norcross ( Sunglass)

1 vote for Hasty ( Norcross)

1 vote for Ambrose ( Sarsfield)

1 vote for Lefford ( Hasty)

1 vote for Sunglass ( Ambrose)

6 players have not voted: Caron, Inchfield, Jast, Lefford, Prester, Uller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

In one game, Martell referred to Baelish as a she. Both were innocent and Baelish was not a she. In a mini with a serial killer soon after (where Piper was indeed Bolton and an FM), Blackmont referred to his FM partner Lynderly as a she (and Lynderly was not a she, funnily enough) and it was noticed but excused. Irony at its finest, I say.

I, for one, think Prester is a headstrong innocent, or that's my read of his so far. Being forceful and opinionated (and a target) is not a sin, nor is it FMish. Lake, I believe you are overeager and twisting words. Prester's case involved a 2/3 chance of Elesham being evil. The other 1/3 involved him being a very foolish vig. His opinion of How To Play A Vig is irrelevant. 2/3 chance of being a baddie and 1/3 chance of being stupid is pretty good cause for a lynch, especially on Day 1. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

That's it?

It wasn't forced, it flowed from my fingers very easily, thank you. Ummm it's early day one, I don't need a reason to vote for Hasty. I am under no obligation to leave my vote there (and I wouldn't if I was worried about 7 others suddenly jumping on the Hasty Wagon.) Finally, I overexplain things that don't need to be explained. It's part of what makes me such a great guy/gal/thing/things.

And call me not very bright (you wouldn't be the first) but I don't see how that would connect me Prester.

edit: took out alt references.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: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*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In one game, Martell referred to Baelish as a she. Both were innocent and Baelish was not a she. In a mini with a serial killer soon after (where Piper was indeed Bolton and an FM), Blackmont referred to his FM partner Lynderly as a she (and Lynderly was not a she, funnily enough) and it was noticed but excused. Irony at its finest, I say.

I, for one, think Prester is a headstrong innocent, or that's my read of his so far. Being forceful and opinionated (and a target) is not a sin, nor is it FMish. Lake, I believe you are overeager and twisting words. Prester's case involved a 2/3 chance of Elesham being evil. The other 1/3 involved him being a very foolish vig. His opinion of How To Play A Vig is irrelevant. 2/3 chance of being a baddie and 1/3 chance of being stupid is pretty good cause for a lynch, especially on Day 1. 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.

no, he gave 2/3 of the options being innocent. He gave the choices of FM, Innocent, and Innocent Vig.

He did drop the case, but to bring up the point of justifying the lynch of a possible Innocent because they were "stupid" is dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I don't agree with the mini-wagon on Prester. I don't think "leading" is suspicious (it's a null-tell, but I'd frankly rather encourage that than passive following, so I find it doubly annoying when people vote people for "leading"), I don't think removing a vote from Elesham is suspicious (I also recall more than one person doing that), especially since it's pretty obvious that Prester actually did think there was a symp, so Elesham's posts looked a lot worse and then he reevaluated.

And I also don't think accusing him of being willing to vote for an innocent (on purpose) because that innocent wasn't playing well is a valid argument--especially given that he removed his vote. I know several players who don't think we ever catch baddies on Day One (despite evidence to the contrary :P) and who would rather vote off someone who might be evil but even if they are innocent are harming the innocent faction by their play. I wouldn't always do that myself, but I don't think it's worth lynching someone who feels that way early on Day One.

So yeah, I don't know if Prester's innocent, but I'm fairly suspicious of the people voting him. Elesham to the lesser extent, since he was involved in a quibble with him, but Upcliff who made rumblings but didn't actually vote till there seemed to be a bit of momentum and Lake, who took a few points and stretched them into a huge "You GUYZ!!! HE'S TEH EVILDOERZZZ" case, both come off pretty bad from my perspective.

(Also, the gender-vote was more of a comment to, you know, not do that sort of thing.)

EDIT: spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So yeah, I don't know if Prester's innocent, but I'm fairly suspicious of the people voting him. Elesham to the lesser extent, since he was involved in a quibble with him, but Upcliff who made rumblings but didn't actually vote till there seemed to be a bit of momentum and Lake, who took a few points and stretched them into a huge "You GUYZ!!! HE'S TEH EVILDOERZZZ" case, both come off pretty bad from my perspective.

Did you actually read the points I raised against Prester? I don't see them addressed in your post.

You do say that you don't think Prester's decision to remove his vote from Elesham is suspicious. And that was part of the argument I raised against him. But it was far from being the entire thing. If you're going to defend his actions, then you need to address the whole issue, instead of focusing on one part and ignoring the rest.

I'll summarize my points against Prester.

1) The new information that supposedly caused him to remove his vote from Elesham did not actually speak to the reasons why he originally voted for Elesham. This is especially problematic because he said it would take 'a lot' for him to remove his vote.

He very clearly stated that the reason he was voting for Elesham was because he felt Elesham was one of these 3 things: a) RI and a detriment to the innocents as the result of being an 'idiot'; B) FM and therefore an obvious detriment to the innocents; or c) a Vig and a detriment to the innocents as the result of being an 'idiot' with the power to kill another player on the innocent team. In that post, he said absolutely nothing about voting for Elesham due to believing Elesham was a symp. His vote was based on those other 3 possibilities.

He stated that 'it would take a lot to get him to remove his vote'.

It was pointed out that Elesham could not be a symp, as a result of the rules.

Prester then removed his vote on Elesham. The vote removal begs the question - what caused him to remove his vote? What qualified as the 'a lot' necessary to get him to take his vote off of Elesham?

Again, the post he made that included his vote stated that the vote was based on the idea that Elesham was a RI, FM, or Vig. Absolutely nothing was said about Elesham being a symp. The vote was not based on the possibility that Elesham was a symp. So the evidence showing that Elesham couldn't be a symp shouldn't have had any impact on whether or not Prester would remove his vote. No new evidence was provided to undermine the actual reasons upon which Prester's vote was based. Certainly nothing that would qualify as the 'a lot' he claimed was necessary to get him to move his vote.

2) When pressed, he stated that he removed his vote because his argument wasn't popular. That does not qualify as the 'a lot' that was supposedly necessary to get him to remove his vote. Also, it is behavior consistent with FM, not innocents.

I asked Prester to explain why he removed the vote. He said 2 key things in his response:

a) "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."

B) "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."

The first issue here is that he is essentially saying that he removed his vote because people didn't agree with him. NOT because he had changed his mind about Elesham being a detriment to the innocent team as a RI, FM, or Vig. NOT as a result of finding out that Elesham couldn't be a symp (in contrast to what he had stated in the post where he actually removed the vote, and in contrast to what you are assuming in your defense of him). But rather, because his argument wasn't a popular one. Because a few people chose to disagree with him.

Well, there are 2 things I can say about that. First, that is a fairly suspicious move, IMO. Giving up on an argument that you believe in (and he does clearly believe in it) because it's unpopular? Definitely not the behavior I'd expect from an innocent player. And definitely the type of behavior I'd expect from a FM who was concerned about making too many enemies, and wandering too far beyond the safe 'popular' opinion.

Second, how does that even come close to being the 'a lot' he claimed would be necessary to get him to remove his vote? A few people saying they disagreed? That's 'a lot'? As I said earlier, if that's what he's now claiming, then his original assertion that it 'would take a lot to get him to move his vote' was in reality completely empty and meaningless.

3) He stated that he removed his vote so he would be free to use it as necessary....which makes absolutely zero sense.

The second issue that becomes apparent from Prester's response stems from his statement that "it's better to have a vote I can use where necisary than one stuck on a one vote person." As I said in a previous post, that's a bunch of bullshit.

There are 2 possible ways to look at his statement. Either a) he wanted to move his vote to some place where he felt it was necessary at that time; or B) he wanted to make it easier for him to move his vote at a later time.

Option (a) cannot be true, because he didn't move his vote onto another player. He removed his vote from Elesham and subsequently left it on the 'no vote' option. He certainly couldn't have found it 'necessary' to vote for nobody.

And option (B) cannot be true either. Because there's no difference between moving his vote from Elesham to some other place where he feels that it's necessary and moving his vote from nobody to some other place where he feels that it's necessary. There are no barriers to voting in this game. There is no limit on the number of times a player can change his vote.

Therefore, his claim that he removed his vote so he would be free to use it as necessary is complete bullshit.

So, really quickly, let's summarize.

1) He said it would take a lot for him to remove his vote from Elesham.

2) Nothing happened to undermine his original arguments against Elesham.

3) He removed his vote from Elesham.

4) He originally claimed that the vote removal was because Elesham couldn't be a symp. In spite of the fact that his original argument against Elesham...the argument after which he stated that it would take 'a lot' to get him to remove his vote...had nothing to do with Elesham being a symp.

5) When pressed, he later claimed that he removed vote because his argument was unpopular.

6) He also claimed that removing his vote would allow him to use it as necessary. Which makes no sense at all.

Conclusion - #5 seems like the most honest response he has provided thus far. It also fits with typical FM behavior.

With regard to your claim that I didn't vote for Prester until there was momentum going against him - bullshit (I think that's going to be my favorite word this game).

Circumstances changed between the post where I asked Prester follow up questions, and the post where I voted for him. More specifically - he made a few posts, but completely ignored what I felt to be very important questions regarding his behavior.

I said as much in the post in which I voted for him. My exact words were -

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.

Not sure how I can possibly be more clear. I asked him questions, he chose to ignore them, so I increased the pressure with a vote. I obviously wasn't trying to convince everybody to speed lynch him right then and there. I was trying to illustrate to him that my questions were serious, and that they needed to be answered. And to show him that continued refusal to provide satisfactory answers could possibly lead to his lynch later in the day.

I'm somewhat bothered by your inability to see the arguments I'm laying out here, Sunglass. They are extremely logical, and fairly easy to understand. You're defending Prester when he has clearly been inconsistent in his statements, has avoided answering the legitimate questions asked of him, and has backed away from confrontation. He looks suspicious, and he should at least be compelled to provide better explanations before people are willing to jump to his defense. Yet you are already on his side of the issue, in spite of the points I've raised against him. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of tempted to vote for Prester, not because I suspect him 100%, but because I've got a nasty little feeling about Upcliff which may or may not be true. Upcliff, your response was so logical yet the attack so focused that there are two options:

1) Prester is a bit of a loose cannon and you've genuinely spotted inconsistencies or

2) Prester is an innocent, possibly the easiest one to lynch right now because of his loose-cannon-ness, and since you're one step ahead of him (and evil), you've decided to come out with guns a-blazing. Maybe even tag-teaming with Lake in a so-obvious-it-can't-be-true team?

</paranoia>

I need to take a fresh look at this tomorrow, I think. I still don't like Lefford, and I'm happy to leave my vote there.

Share this post


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

×