AGOT Mafia 50 - The Chef Battle

[House Targaryen]

It is day 4.

8 players remain: Corbray, Dayne, Florent, Grandison, Merryweather, Pommingham, Stokeworth, Thorne.

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

1 vote for Dayne (Corbray)

7 players have not voted: Dayne, Florent, Grandison, Merryweather, Pommingham, Stokeworth, Thorne.

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Dayne' post='1320294' date='Apr 19 2008, 01.09']All of a sudden? :lol: It's been [i]two days[/i] since you posted your case, it's hardly an instant rise in suspicion.[/quote]


The timing and sequence are the important factors here. You did not suspect me until I made a case on you. Now, I am on your short list. The last lynch and NK were two people left alive that had modestly PI'd me. Your timing is suspect.

[House Wythers]

Okay, it looks like I am online again when everyone else is off. There hasn't been anyone in the room for awhile, so I am going to go to bed.

I should be able to check in within 12 hours.

[House Dayne]

[quote name='House Corbray' post='1320303' date='Apr 19 2008, 01.31']I think Connington was a beautiful NK choice. He was one of the few players left besides Tollett who had generally been willing to PI me. By the way, Wythers basically PI'd me before his modkill as well. Most everyone else was willing to put me on a lynch list starting yesterday (and iirc, only after Dayne first mentioned it after I posted that I would be making a case against him).[/quote]Hmm, nice appeal to authority with the reference to Wythers, utilising a dead player's legwork to give your theories legitimacy and a great attempt to exonerate yourself with the nightkill. Class effort all round.

[quote name='House Corbray' post='1320315' date='Apr 19 2008, 03.07']The timing and sequence are the important factors here. You did not suspect me until I made a case on you. Now, I am on your short list. The last lynch and NK were two people left alive that had modestly PI'd me. Your timing is suspect.[/quote]What I said after you mentioned you were posting your case was:[quote name='me']I'll be interested to see Corbray's case, to be honest. Seeing as they are a player I've not really had much of a read on either way, their thoughts should prove helpful.[/quote]If you think that's someone going after you and if you think that got players going after you as you implied in the first quote I posted, exactly how many symps do you think I have?

You're on [i]my[/i] shortlist along with Grandison and Pommingham now because most of the other players who looked really suspect have died already and I have no evidence that puts you on the positive side of the ledger. It's really that simple.

[House Thorne]

modkill avoidance.

I will make an effort to do re-reads this afternoon. IN about 8 or so hours. For now I am leaning toward Dayne or Stokeworth.

[House Dayne]

Much as I hate to leave such an active thread, I'm off to bed. Hopefully someone's said something when I get back.

[House Sunglass]

The rest is silence.
I suppose, too many players has no energy enough to proceed this.
Me too, alas.
I'll sheep Corbray for today, since his understanding of game is closest to mine. I hope a bit later I'll be in the form to make a reread or something else useful.

[House Sunglass]

Still silence?
[b]Dayne.[/b]

[House Frey]

I'm back for a few hours. It doesn't look like I have all that much to catch up on.

I'm actually curious what else Dayne has to say about Cobray so I'll let him finish the reread.

I guess since Florent was going to reread me, I might as well reread Dayne. It seems most have a pretty firm grasp on his posts throughout the game so I don't think it'll hurt to be sure.

I will say this though, I do not want us to forget about Grandison and Pommingham. This is the same kind of shit that happened during last game; I don't want to be victim of it as well. The connections to Smallwood are there for both of them and it scares me to think that we're ignoring them today just because they're the "obvious" targets.

That being said, I'll start rereading now (well, once I set up the laptop so I can go outside...it's gorgeous out).

[House Upcliff]

Wow. Sorry guys, today's just been... busy. And no sign of slowing down.

I'm going to try to get that Re-read in done in the next hour or so.

[House Sunglass]

[quote name='House Merryweather' post='1320638' date='Apr 19 2008, 13.15']I will say this though, I do not want us to forget about Grandison and Pommingham. This is the same kind of shit that happened during last game; I don't want to be victim of it as well.[/quote]Yeah. I'll check here from time to time, just to remind you shouldn't forget about me... and about Grandison also.

[House Frey]

So I've reread Dayne and it's not much different than what we already know.

Smallwood mentioned Dayne twice the entire game. The first time was in a post that said "These players haven't pinged my radar" which was just a list of players with the lowest post counts. The second time, he tagged Dayne and Tollett on the end of a post about why he found me suspicious and said they were suspicious because "they hadn't been in the spotlight." That was it.

Now, we know that Dayne did several things. First, he never mentioned Smallwood on day 1. On day 2, when the case was brought up, he completely ignored it. He had time to comment on other things like Erenford but not Smallwood. When pushed to comment on Smallwood, he said:

[quote name='Dayne']Smallwood I'm pretty vague on at the moment. Probably should reread them next, although I doubt I'll burden you all with a summary unless I find something worth posting.[/quote]

He never reread him, at least to our knowledge. Maybe he did and decided not to post a summary. Who knows. He never told us. So can we assume that he didn't find him suspicious since he didn't find anything worth posting?

Cobray wrote up a case linking Stokeworth and Dayne together. One of the points against Dayne was that he challenged Plumm who was voting Smallwood. Here is his response:

[quote name='Dayne']Mostly on why they had a few other players in the tiers they were in. I couldn't see the reasoning for trusting Erenford and Florent so fully. I really had no opinion on the Smallwood vote or Smallwood at all for that matter. They were never around when I was and nothing they said really stood out when i had to reread large chunks of the day.[/quote]

These are the two mentions of Smallwood. Basically, he has no opinion and is not ready to commit to anything. I want to note that the post Cobray was talking about (where Dayne challenged Plumm) was written before the first quote but AFTER Connington's case against Smallwood. So either he's not reading the posts in the thread or he is afraid to comment on Smallwood.

The other bad thing about Dayne's posts is the amount of sheeping that he has done to Stokeworth. It seems like he chose a strong innocent and started latching onto his cases, especially since they were wrong. I can't help but feel that he was just parroting most of the things that Stokeworth was saying. Cobray was correct in linking them together because it really seems like they're partners but I think his conclusions are wrong. I can't see Stokeworth willingly allowing a partner to so blatantly sheep him. To me, it seems like he was trying to hide behind Stokeworth and let him take the fall for any wrong cases.

I see the case and agree with it but I'm not ready to vote. There are already two votes and plenty of time (I think?). I want to explore all the options.

Two things I want to know.

Cobray, what do you think of Grandison and Pommingham?

Dayne, what do you think about Grandison? You mention him a few times on your suspect list but I can't seem to find your posts one single mention of why. Care to explain?

[House Upcliff]

Merry Re-read

Joke votes thorne. Then makes a point from nowhere that thorne is blending in, so the vote's affirming stoke's point. So, first post with any substance is agreeing with someone and retro-voting for blending in rather than as a joke.
Asks lots of questions. Looks provocative and usefull, but without adding anything himself.
Jokes he doesn't mind a third vote. We can WIFOM it to hell, but it stinks of "I say just vote me, so you won't do it" to me.
Wythers pulls him up for wishy washy on me, leading the questioning without adding a vote.
snipes at Mallister for parroting. Still no actual input from him though, so a little hypocritical.
Finally adds his first real usefull post, attacking Erenford for subtly defending me.
Has a bit of a tiff with Plumm, grandison, anyone else who stumbles in :P
Wakes up on day two, and parrots wythers. Then parrots stoke.
Seems quite upset at my WIFOMing the Fell thing. Need to check, was he suspected or not? Suprise suprise, he wasn't suspected. did i hit a little too close to the truth? Or do I need to deflate my ego?
Starts the "floresnt contradiction" thing that he'll later admit didn't exist.
Has another little row with Grandison.
calls the case on smallwood true, but then goes on to defend him pretty well.
parrots Stoke a little more.
Has a huge tiff with Thorne over the who's to blame for "my contradiction" taht didn't exist.
attacks wythers for trying to force a quick decision with Small top of the list to go.
"waits on the counter" for plumm. Signal to his symp?
Is part of the 4 man rush hammer on small.
"I just wish Wythers would come back and not force us to rush this." - Surely only an FM would want him to come back? The best case scenario for innocents if we had rushed it was Wythers coming back early morning with another result. Worst case, well, we got it in the end. modkill.
"I can see an innocent questioning the reveal. I can also see a partner questioning it in hopes for a counter claim." - Just the thing i thought about you eh?
Offers to reread Corbray
Then offers to reread Dayne. Still hasn't delivered the first one, but no mention of it.

So, based on my last point alone, did he grab his partner to make sure no-one else would, and hope we wouldn't notice the omission?

But yeah. We have someone who's blended in to the crowd other than when sniping at people and having silly arguments that will never lead anywhere unsafe. He's sheeped the sheep, and, well, sheeping the strong innocent's an old FM tactic. He created my contradiction from thin air, which ties in with FMs twisting things...

Why is it whenever I re-read someone, I come back convinced of their guilt, [b]Merryweather[/b]?

edit: Don't forget the potential signal to a symp to counter claim, or the "come back wythers!" appeal.
edit2: As a final peice of evidence, I'd like to draw more attention to the fact he attacked me for wanting to look at people OFF Fells list rather than on it. Didn't like my explination of why he might have tactically died.

[House Frey]

Don't go anywhere Florent. I'm trying to respond to your case except you decided not to provide quotes once again. That means I have to go provide the quotes which means this will take a few minutes.

[House Upcliff]

[quote name='House Merryweather' post='1320692' date='Apr 19 2008, 20.42']Don't go anywhere Florent. I'm trying to respond to your case except you decided not to provide quotes once again. That means I have to go provide the quotes which means this will take a few minutes.[/quote]

I'm going to go somewhere and you can't stop me!

All the way to the shop. I need caffinated fizzy drinks!

And sorry about the links. When re-reading, is there an easy, quick way?

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Dayne' post='1320319' date='Apr 19 2008, 02.19']Hmm, nice appeal to authority with the reference to Wythers, utilising a dead player's legwork to give your theories legitimacy and a great attempt to exonerate yourself with the nightkill. Class effort all round.

What I said after you mentioned you were posting your case was:If you think that's someone going after you and if you think that got players going after you as you implied in the first quote I posted, exactly how many symps do you think I have?

You're on [i]my[/i] shortlist along with Grandison and Pommingham now because most of the other players who looked really suspect have died already and I have no evidence that puts you on the positive side of the ledger. It's really that simple.[/quote]

Since when is referencing the analysis of a dead player always an appeal to authority? I reposted his unsnipped analysis in light of his assassination because I think it is relevant to his being made a target for NK. I am not making anything up, but rather pointing out that we can be relatively confident in the innocence of certain players, who have no reason to manipulate anyone to believe in my innocence. Since some VPI or CI players stated they felt I was trustworthy, I think that is a mark in my favor, especially since they are dead now. Why would a Evil Cobray eliminate players who were stating their trust for Corbray in the game thread? I did not hide the fact that Connie had a reservation about trusting me in the post. I think you are either Smallwood's partner, or else the promotable symp. I think you have felt the need to come out of the shadows more, now that your partner is dead. That leaves Grandison or Pomm as the other Evil Player (most likely). I want to lynch you for sure today because I have you listed as the top candidate for Evil, and that should buy us the extra lynch to find the last 1 or 2 bad guys.

[House Upcliff]

Corbray, what do you think about Merry?

edit: and Corbray, you've forgot to go invisible.:P

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Florent' post='1320701' date='Apr 19 2008, 14.49']Corbray, what do you think about Merry?

edit: and Corbray, you've forgot to go invisible. :P[/quote]


[i]Thanks for reminding me!

[/i]I am working on responding to Merry's request for views on Grandi and Pommi

After that I will look at your request for thoughts about Merry.

I may not have time to finish each of these at the moment, but should be able to post all of these thoughts within about 10 hours.

[House Frey]

There are a few problems with your case. I'll point them out since you NEVER provide any quotes to back up your points. It's damn annoying.

[quote name='Florent']Joke votes thorne. Then makes a point from nowhere that thorne is blending in, so the vote's affirming stoke's point. So, first post with any substance is agreeing with someone and retro-voting for blending in rather than as a joke.[/quote]

A post from nowhere?

[quote name='Stokeworth']How about finding the FM? Or at least doing something productive. Anybody want to take a stab at that? If people are looking for something to talk about, then start with the point I made against Grandison. I know it's not some great case, but I was being serious. I think evil players often try to blend in by following the crowd on little things such as posting recipes.[/quote]

My post from nowhere was a response to this quote. I even quoted this quote when I said it. But that's ok.

[quote name='Florent']Asks lots of questions. Looks provocative and usefull, but without adding anything himself.[/quote]

This is misleading. Let me give you an example.

[quote name='Merryweather']Have you ever seen a game where someone hanged by accident?[/quote]
[quote name='Smallwood']Oh, oh, I have! Several actually.[/quote]
[quote name='Merryweather']Well I haven't. Every single time a joke lynch gets anywhere near a lynch, someone calls it out and people drop the votes. I have never seen someone get 9 joke votes and be lynched on day 1. If you have, you must have played with some really bad players.[/quote]

There are countless other examples of me asking questions then following it up with comments. There are also times when my questions are actually my point. How about a few more exampes?

[quote name='Merryweather']So how about now? Do you plan on adding anything yet or do you still lack strong stances in regards to day one cases?[/quote]

This was a response to Erenford. Florent says that I ask questions and then provide nothing of my own. The problem is, that question is a prime example of what I do. I had made a case on Erenford and now I'm questioning the fact that he's not participating. Is there anything else I need to say?

[quote name='Florent']Jokes he doesn't mind a third vote. We can WIFOM it to hell, but it stinks of "I say just vote me, so you won't do it" to me.[/quote]

This is not what you originally said. You originally thought I wanted them to vote me to protect Tollett. Now it's a ploy to get people to not vote me by telling them to vote me? Lets be consistent now. As I said when you originally made a comment, it was a play on the fact that early in the game, Thorne asked me if his vote on me mattered and then Fell asked if 2 votes mattered. But that's ok, WIFOM a different reason.

[quote name='Florent']Wythers pulls him up for wishy washy on me, leading the questioning without adding a vote.[/quote]

The problem here is the fact that I wasn't leading the questioning on you. I made two comments. One was to ask you if you've ever seen an accidental lynch and the second was to say that I hadn't.

[quote name='Florent']snipes at Mallister for parroting. Still no actual input from him though, so a little hypocritical.[/quote]

How is it hypocritical? I wasn't parroting anyone if you say I'm adding no input (though you're also saying people think I'm leading the questioning on you so :dunno:)

[quote name='Florent']Finally adds his first real usefull post, attacking Erenford for subtly defending me.[/quote]

Hardly the whole post but that's ok. This is why it's easy to make cases when you don't provide the quotes.

[quote name='Florent']Wakes up on day two, and parrots wythers. Then parrots stoke[/quote]

Provide some examples please. It might be true, fuck if I know. But if you don't provide any quotes to back up your claim then what do you expect me to say? Nuh uh!

[quote name='Florent']Seems quite upset at my WIFOMing the Fell thing. Need to check, was he suspected or not? Suprise suprise, he wasn't suspected. did i hit a little too close to the truth? Or do I need to deflate my ego?[/quote]

Dude, you can't understand a fucking thing you said in that post. Wythers voted you beuase he coudn't understand. I even agreed with you later once I figured it out. I had this discussion with Wythers. Did you miss that part in your reread or selectively cut it out?

Obviously if I agreed with you and did go against Wythers about it, I wasn't all that worried about you hitting too close to home now would I?

[quote name='Florent']Starts the "floresnt contradiction" thing that he'll later admit didn't exist.[/quote]

Haven't we exhausted this?

[quote name='Florent']calls the case on smallwood true, but then goes on to defend him pretty well.[/quote]

This is the only true point in your whole case. I did defend Smallwood as I thought he was too blatant with the fact that he had no plans to participate. I was wrong.

[quote name='Florent']parrots Stoke a little more.[/quote]

Examples please? How about examples on when I don't parrot too? I mean, you were able to cut down my 100+ posts into like, 15 posts of garbage.

[House Frey]

[quote name='Florent']"waits on the counter" for plumm. Signal to his symp?[/quote]

I never left the thread. What would you do when someone claims finder and you're the 2nd person to see it? Well, wait to see if there is a counter.

[quote name='Florent']Is part of the 4 man rush hammer on small.[/quote]

Lets be a bit more accurate. I was the first person to vote when Smallwood only had 4 votes. That put him at 5 and then I left the thread to do some work. That means he as at L-3. The fact that three people jumped on and hammered him AFTER I left is hardly my fault.


[quote name='Florent']"I just wish Wythers would come back and not force us to rush this." - Surely only an FM would want him to come back? The best case scenario for innocents if we had rushed it was Wythers coming back early morning with another result. Worst case, well, we got it in the end. modkill.[/quote]

Surely. I mean, I had just woken up, gotten to work and I had 2 hours to make a decision because Piper decided to go all Emo and fuck us over. The best thing for me to do as a FM is not to say anything at all and force the decision to fail, watch Wythers get modkilled and call it a day. Of course, that's not what I did as I jumped in the thread.

[quote name='Florent']"I can see an innocent questioning the reveal. I can also see a partner questioning it in hopes for a counter claim." - Just the thing i thought about you eh?[/quote]

I didn't question the reveal. At least quote my fucking post and what it was in response to. That was directed at Pommingham for saying he wasn't sure if he believed the claim cause the results didn't make sense then left the thread.

[quote name='Florent']Offers to reread Corbray
Then offers to reread Dayne. Still hasn't delivered the first one, but no mention of it.[/quote]

Really?

[quote name='Merryweather']I'm actually curious what else Dayne has to say about Cobray so I'll let him finish the reread.[/quote]

Look like 4 posts up.

That's why I didn't reread Cobray. I went out last night and then went out this morning. When I came back, Dayne had pointed out the connections to Smallwood and said he'd look to see what else. I wanted to know what he had to say which is exactly what I posted.

[quote name='Florent']So, based on my last point alone, did he grab his partner to make sure no-one else would, and hope we wouldn't notice the omission?[/quote]

Your last point is false.

[quote name='Florent']But yeah. We have someone who's blended in to the crowd other than when sniping at people and having silly arguments that will never lead anywhere unsafe. He's sheeped the sheep, and, well, sheeping the strong innocent's an old FM tactic. He created my contradiction from thin air, which ties in with FMs twisting things...[/quote]

Thanks for summing up my play. Unfortunately, it's not really true. I created your contradiction from thin air? I read Thorne's post. It's been pointed out at least 4 times now. Do I need to do it again?

[quote name='Florent']Why is it whenever I re-read someone, I come back convinced of their guilt, Merryweather?[/quote]

Because you read what you want to read and not how the posts actually read.

Why do you have a question mark at the end of your vote if you're confident of my guilt?


I had to break it up into 2 posts because of the number of quotes.