AGOT Mafia 50 - The Chef Battle

[House Connington]

[quote name='House Plumm' post='1315313' date='Apr 15 2008, 15.39']In Breif, Connington spent the whole of day 1 hung up over Pommingham, without saying that had not already been said by someone else. And never expressing stong feeling of anyone else. He doesn't feel Smallwood's vote is worth responding too, and he has no other suspects than Pommingham.[/quote] Umm, yes I was hung up on Pommingham yesterday. I found something that I thought was suspicious and I stuck with it, so sue me. I disagree that I was not saying anything that had not already been said though. Fell and I were the first persons to question Pommingham, and I'm pretty sure we cross-posted. At the least, I think I was the only one really pushing Pommingham. Just because no one agreed with me does not mean it wasn't content. And no, I did not have strong feelings about you or Erenford, you had both been pretty quiet and hadn't really said anything remarkable. I was willing to vote for either of you for that, but much preferred Pommingham.

[quote]So I would like to know who you suspect now Pommingham. Infact I think we should all make a list of who we suspect, but I would like Pommingham to post his first. Just so I can't accuse you of parroting.

Do you still have any suspsion of Smallwood? if not why? what has he done to change your opinion?[/quote] I'm assuming you mean me not Pommingham. :P Yes I do still suspect Smallwood, in fact I've been putting together a case on him. I'm also suspicious of Wythers and Pommingham, although a bit less so than yesterday.

[quote]Can you tell me why you never responded to Smallwoods vote for you yesterday? I know I that if someone I suspect votes for me I would really want to post some kind of reatcion instead of just ignoreing it.[/quote]
Honestly, I don't remember why I ignored it, but it was probably just because it seemed like a pretty random selection.

[Lady Gaga]

[quote name='House Florent' post='1315343' date='Apr 15 2008, 21.58']Maybe he's entranced by my rogueish good looks?

But yeah. Wythers could easily be the symp.

Then again, we're better off seeking FMs and saving the symps for later aren't we?

When I have a bit of time on the laptop without the other half grabbing it (It is theirs to be fair) I'll have my own look for a FM.

If we seriously can't find one, I'll perhaps consider a wythers symp lynch. The main problem is where they've been symping me, it's hard to know if it's just sympish because i'm the recipient and didn't expect help. I'd hate to lynch the one other innocent on my side.[/quote]

You could give us a reread (or your opinion) about the following players:

- Merryweather

- Smallwood

- Tollett

[Lady Gaga]

BTW, where is Pommingham?

[House Connington]

[quote name='House Wythers' post='1315338' date='Apr 15 2008, 15.54']I did not support the mob on Plumm yesterday. I also said that I didn't like the mob on Pommingham. And I also did not support the case on Erenford.[/quote]
Yes, that's my point. You didn't like those mobs either, but you didn't argue against them the way you've been determinedly arguing against Florent. Why is Florent so special?

[House Upcliff]

[quote name='House Wythers' post='1315346' date='Apr 15 2008, 21.00']You could give us a reread (or your opinion) about the following players:

- Merryweather

- Smallwood

- Tollett[/quote]

I don't know where else to start, so sure, why not?

[House Payne]

[quote name='House Wythers' post='1315285' date='Apr 15 2008, 14.16']I want you to think about what you already said before: that I was not only voting for Mallister, but that I was drawing attention to him:

I would be a very dumb symo to attack one of my masters - after all a symp doesn't want to get NKed. A symp knows that his masters look for him.

Furthermore, have a look at the timing. If you were right and I was trying to save Mallister's ass, I should have switched my vote before Plumm voted for Mallister instead of saying

This was a response to Thorne, who prefers to pressure the easy targets, but who had no problem with Mallister's absence. If someone was protecting Mallister at the given time, it was Thorne, not me.

You already admitted that I was not very likely partnered with Mallister. If I was his partner, I would have known that he wouldn't return to defend himself, so I wouldn't dare to shift the attention in his direction.[/quote]

This is the kind of stuff that makes me suspect you more and more. I never said I thought you were Mallister's partner or symp. Yet you post this big defense about it, directed toward me. You act as if I have contradicted myself...as if I earlier believed that you were unlikely to be a Mallister symp/partner, but now I feel differently. But I never said I feel differently.

Everything you do seems as if it is designed to cause confusion and chaos, Wythers.

[Lady Gaga]

[quote name='House Connington' post='1315348' date='Apr 15 2008, 22.01']Yes, that's my point. You didn't like those mobs either, but you didn't argue against them the way you've been determinedly arguing against Florent. Why is Florent so special?[/quote]

Well, the main discussion for today was about me being partnered with Mallister in some way. I also did not defend Florent, but I questioned Thorne's approach to the game - asking silly and distracting questions like 'prove that Fell has been the strongest player on day 1'. The only defense of Florent today was the ominoius 'contradiction' issue brought up by Thorne - he still hasn't back up this accusation with a quote - and I said that Florent's slip up is not suspicious at all.


I would like to bring back Fell's suspect list - Thorne has successfully managed that we don't talk about it. I would like Corbray and Stokeworth to reread Fell's posts - I think Week deserves this.

[House Payne]

[quote name='House Wythers' post='1315373' date='Apr 15 2008, 15.16']I would like to bring back Fell's suspect list - Thorne has successfully managed that we don't talk about it. I would like Corbray and Stokeworth to reread Fell's posts - I think Week deserves this.[/quote]

I'll re-read his posts. I think he was probably killed because he showed himself to be a strong player, but it doesn't hurt to look through his suspects. I imagine doing so will lead back to a lot of my own suspects on day 1, since we seemed to agree on a lot of issues.

Oh, and since I haven't ranted about it yet (because I've been busy with Florent/Wythers), whoever killed Week needs to grow some balls. Its fucking bullshit, and I'm not going to hide the fact that I'm pissed about it. I love how some of us are just forced to pass around the night 1 target shirt in every god damn game, and everyone else gets a free pass. Lucky them.

[Lady Gaga]

[quote name='House Stokeworth' post='1315361' date='Apr 15 2008, 22.09']This is the kind of stuff that makes me suspect you more and more. I never said I thought you were Mallister's partner or symp. Yet you post this big defense about it, directed toward me. You act as if I have contradicted myself...as if I earlier believed that you were unlikely to be a Mallister symp/partner, but now I feel differently. But I never said I feel differently.

Everything you do seems as if it is designed to cause confusion and chaos, Wythers.[/quote]

I think we are both talking at cross-purposes. I wasn't attacking you at all with that post, but I wanted you to show why it's rather unlikely that I am partnered with Mallister in some way.

I confess I don't share most of your logic, but I can see that you are trying to get things moving- that's why you are on my innocent list. I hope you see that I'm not only defending myself right now, but that I also try to gather informations from half a dozen players. YOu have only to deal with me (and unfortunatly you've decided not to do anything else), while I have to keep my attention several cases, issues etc.



BTW, you supported Thorne's 'contradiction case' against Florent. Can you quote the post by Florent where he did that?

[Magic Mirror]

[i]Now home from test. In process of re-reading at the moment.[/i]

[House Connington]

Right, Smallwood. The basic premise is that despite having a fair number of posts Smallwood has contributed next to nothing so far. There's also some weirdness with Erenford that I would like him to address.

[quote name='House Smallwood' post='1312388' date='Apr 13 2008, 15.10']I'm not really certain how many votes are on Florent but I'll [b]remove my vote[/b] just the same.

I'd be more than happy to comment on the point against Grandison but I'm not exactly sure what it was. I've decided to experiment with a new style of play too, it's called playing the game with as few pointlless rereads as possible :P[/quote]
This is Smallwood's initial response to Florent's panic, removing his vote. Fine in and of itself, but when combined with later posts:

[quote name='House Smallwood' post='1312406' date='Apr 13 2008, 15.19']Why so afraid of getting lynched Florent? Afraid you'll let down your evil killing team without having even killed anyone yet?[/quote]
And his response to Wythers putting him in the suspicious anti-Florent camp...
[quote name='House Smallwood' post='1312490' date='Apr 13 2008, 16.27']For the record, I was just trying to spark a reaction when I questioned Florent, I really hadn't seen that anyone else had done the same. I stand by what I said though - Florent is acting suspicious... just a bit too suspicious to actually be a prime suspect ;)[/quote]
His initial reaction to Florent is to remove his vote, which makes his 'questioning' Florent later especially pointless and ineffective. So I don't like his assertion that he is trying to spark a reaction with it. He wants to sound like he is contributing to the discussion without actually contributing. The closing statement is just icing. I don't see how Florent is acting "too suspicious", either you think the overreaction is suspicious or you don't, you can't have your cake and eat it too. And sounds like you just want to placate Wythers there, while also looking helpful by "confronting" Florent.
[quote name='House Smallwood' post='1312444' date='Apr 13 2008, 15.37']I really hate the 'if I were a killer...' routine. It actually makes me suspect you a little now Florent. Though the fact you seem to be digging your own grave makes me suspect you a little bit less... hmmm...[/quote]
Again, don't like this post. What did you mean exactly? In what way was Florent digging his own grave, and why was it not suspicious?

Fell called him on some of this, and Smallwood posted a response, however, his response to the accusation of being middle-of-the-road was just to laugh it off, which I find suspicious, because I have found myself using that same tactic when evil. He mentions that he has gut suspicions of Fell (funny that), and has become more suspicious of Florent because everyone is defending them. He doesn't follow up on either of these. Instead, he comes up with this lovely list of suspects:

[quote name='House Smallwood' post='1313618' date='Apr 14 2008, 14.56']I did initially read Pommingham (though I still haven't done my re-read of the thread), that's why I'm asking for a summery of the case.... they don't strike me as any more or less suspicious than most.

There are several players who haven't pinged my radar at all this game:

House Plumm 14
House Dayne 12
House Tollett 11
House Erenford 9
House Corbray 7
House Connington 6
House Mallister 5

None of them have said anything memorable either way as far as I can tell and I wouldn't at all have a problem voting any of them out. Of those I'd say I'm most concerned about Corbray and Connington who I barely remember at all. I think I'll vote for [b]Connington[/b] just 'cause...

And yes, I know I left Grandison off the list just in case anyone brings it up. It's not that I don't suspect them, just that their posts seem to have more content in them than the other 'low posters'.[/quote]
Copying and pasting from the post count box does not equal contribution! :rolleyes: Especially since I think most of the players on that list, despite low post counts have actually made more contribution than you have. I'd also just like to note that he says he would be perfectly happy to vote any of these people off. Since this is for lack of a better word his working suspect list, I find his later post questionable:

[quote name='House Smallwood' post='1313692' date='Apr 14 2008, 15.34']Alright, we don't have a lot of time left in the day. I'm changing my vote to [b]Mallister[/b] mainly because I don't like the other main options on the table - Erenford and Pommingham. I wouldn't mind a summery of either case though.[/quote]
As was pointed out at the time, his omission of Plumm given that Plumm was the center of discussion at the time is weird. I also think it's funny that he has a problem with the case on Erenford. He seemed perfectly fine with Erenford in his previous post. If he's concerned about time, and his main criterion his post count, why not vote Erenford, seeing as there was much more support for an Erenford lynch at the time than a Mallister lynch?

[quote name='House Smallwood' post='1313719' date='Apr 14 2008, 15.45']I sort have been lumping Plumm in with Pomm; People are taking an either-or stance on them but I don't feel very strongly about either. Plumm probably gets bonus points because he's been around to talk lately.[/quote]
I don't really understand this post at all. Smallwood, what where you trying to say here?

And of course, all of this makes this post rather ironic:[quote name=''House Smallwood'']Regarding Merryweather, admittedly I didn't do a full read through but what bugs me about him is that while he is a mid-high range poster, most of his posts tend to be of the one liner variety and at several times don't even relate to the game at all. I also found it interesting that he tends to defend himself by putting others on the defensive.[/quote]

So in summation, the main point against Smallwood is that he has talked lots and said nothing. The closest thing to suspects he gave us yesterday is a list of the low posters. Despite that, he decides that he does not want to vote for one of said low posters because he didn't like the case for reasons he has not elaborated on. Smallwood, why didn't you like the Erenford lynch?

[House Upcliff]

[quote name='House Stokeworth' post='1315386' date='Apr 15 2008, 21.24']Oh, and since I haven't ranted about it yet (because I've been busy with Florent/Wythers), whoever killed Week needs to grow some balls. Its fucking bullshit, and I'm not going to hide the fact that I'm pissed about it. I love how some of us are just forced to pass around the night 1 target shirt in every god damn game, and everyone else gets a free pass. Lucky them.[/quote]

Here I totally agree, and made that clear as soon as the Night ended. I'm an innocent, but even if i was an FM i'd have had to be overruled by a couple of partners before that kill went through.

[Lady Gaga]

[quote name='House Stokeworth' post='1315386' date='Apr 15 2008, 22.24']I'll re-read his posts. I think he was probably killed because he showed himself to be a strong player, but it doesn't hurt to look through his suspects. I imagine doing so will lead back to a lot of my own suspects on day 1, since we seemed to agree on a lot of issues.

Oh, and since I haven't ranted about it yet (because I've been busy with Florent/Wythers), whoever killed Week needs to grow some balls. Its fucking bullshit, and I'm not going to hide the fact that I'm pissed about it. I love how some of us are just forced to pass around the night 1 target shirt in every god damn game, and everyone else gets a free pass. Lucky them.[/quote]


Remember the last game when Harlot-Wythers survived until the end? It was because he suspected the wrong players. I think you would have been the second choice for the FM. I agree that it's totally possible that Week was simply killed because he was strong player - but maybe he was killed because he was also more dangerous for the FM.


Another thing that hasn't been mentioned so far is the impact that the kill-switcher role has on the FM:

[quote]World's greatest cook (kill-switcher):
You're simply the best. People would kill to taste your masterpieces. Even the other cooks can't resist the urge to try it. You may offer them to taste your meals instead of you.

Three times during the game, you may PM the name of one player to the mods. If you're targeted, and no other role intervenes, that player will die instead of you. However, each time you choose to perform this action, you must send to the mods a short essay about a sad event from your childhood.[/quote]

In a worst case scenario, the FM try to kill the KS, but the kill is reflected to one of them. The job of the KS is to draw a nightkill. Hence killing a top poster might badly backfire on the FM. I don't know if the FM have thought about this yet (I only had the idea today), but if they did, they took another risk by targeting Fell.

[House Dondarrion]

[quote name='House Connington' post='1315344' date='Apr 15 2008, 20.59']Umm, yes I was hung up on Pommingham yesterday. I found something that I thought was suspicious and I stuck with it, so sue me. I disagree that I was not saying anything that had not already been said though. [color="#FF00FF"]Fell and I were the first persons to question Pommingham, and I'm pretty sure we cross-posted.[/color] At the least, I think I was the only one really pushing Pommingham. Just because no one agreed with me does not mean it wasn't content. And no, I did not have strong feelings about you or Erenford, you had both been pretty quiet and hadn't really said anything remarkable. I was willing to vote for either of you for that, but much preferred Pommingham.

I'm assuming you mean me not Pommingham. :P Yes I do still suspect Smallwood, in fact I've been putting together a case on him. I'm also suspicious of Wythers and Pommingham, although a bit less so than yesterday.


Honestly, I don't remember why I ignored it, but it was probably just because it seemed like a pretty random selection.[/quote]

[s]

from what I can see Fell, Florrent Dayne and Malister All posted something about Pommingtons non-vote Erenford posted but did not want to add pressure and Thorne did not like it but thought some of the other voters more suspect before you showed up.

Now I am just gonna trebble check but I can't see any cross posting in that lot.
[/s] edit not to add the vote but to say I was going the wrong way and pageing forward not back. I need re-think this



[b] Connington [/b]

[House Connington]

[quote name='House Wythers' post='1315373' date='Apr 15 2008, 16.16']Well, the main discussion for today was about me being partnered with Mallister in some way. I also did not defend Florent, but I questioned Thorne's approach to the game - asking silly and distracting questions like 'prove that Fell has been the strongest player on day 1'. The only defense of Florent today was the ominoius 'contradiction' issue brought up by Thorne - he still hasn't back up this accusation with a quote - and I said that Florent's slip up is not suspicious at all.[/quote]
While you have not been defending him directly, you have been pretty consistent in questioning anyone who questions him. First with the infamous day one thing, now Thorne. And yes, I know you'd PI'd Fell and now Stokeworth, but you started out by being suspicious of them for suspecting Florent. As far as I can see, you have not been questioning people for pushing any of the other cases you don't support, so I still feel that Florent is getting special treatment here, and I don't see why.

[House Thorne]

[quote name='House Wythers' post='1315373' date='Apr 15 2008, 15.16']Well, the main discussion for today was about me being partnered with Mallister in some way.[/quote]

The main discussion today for me has been your continuous defense of Florent.
[quote][b] I also did not defend Florent[/b],[/quote]

Yes. You did. Yesterday and today.

[quote]but I questioned Thorne's approach to the game - asking silly and distracting questions like 'prove that Fell has been the strongest player on day 1'.[/quote]

Your characterization of my questions does not make them so.

[quote]The only defense of Florent today was the ominoius 'contradiction' issue brought up by Thorne - he still hasn't back up this accusation with a quote - and I said that Florent's slip up is not suspicious at all.[/quote]

Actually Merryweather called it a contradiction and I used it to continue to press Florent to admit that he was in fact CI'ing Fell, which he seemed reluctant to do for some reason.

What does it matter to you who I question to satisfy my own suspicions? You are accusing me of trying to deflect others from "Fell's List" and yet here you are demanding that I relent in my prosecution of a suspect. You can judge my case for whatever value you choose, but that doesn't explain why you're just begging me to stop.

[quote]I would like to bring back Fell's suspect list - Thorne has successfully managed that we don't talk about it. I would like Corbray and Stokeworth to reread Fell's posts - I think Week deserves this.[/quote]

Again you are claiming that I have derailed, detracted or dissuaded others from pursuing their own suspects. I asked before and I'll ask again, show me where.

[House Connington]

[quote name='House Plumm' post='1315404' date='Apr 15 2008, 16.32']from what I can see Fell, Florrent Dayne and Malister All posted something about Pommingtons non-vote Erenford posted but did not want to add pressure and Thorne did not like it but thought some of the other voters more suspect before you showed up.

Now I am just gonna trebble check but I can't see any cross posting in that lot.

[b] Connington [/b][/quote]
I questioned him on it before I actually voted, it was short and quick, but it's there. I didn't vote immediately because I wanted to pressure Smallwood. After sleeping on it, I decided he was more suspicious and so switched my vote.

[House Upcliff]

Okay, I like the case on smallwood. I won't bother with my own re-read, leaving me with just two to do. I've managed one, but will have to hand Lappy over for a bit once i've posted it. I'll try to do the other tonight, but no promises.

Tomorrow night i'm home with my own PC. Yay!

So, onto the reread...

- Tollett
Jokes around, feeling very non-commitant early on. Keeps vote on me, but claiming not to find me too guilty, just more than the rest wh are all still perfectly innocent.
Writes off the recipe on Grandison.
Argues that he isn't blending in. Coming under a little pressure himself now.
Claims he hoped his vote on me would get such a reaction, despite the fact that realising all the facts, there would have been no reaction. It wasn't a vote based on liklihood of guilt. Therefore he's happy to grab himself undeserved praise.
Wakes up, does a re-read and backs off on me. By this time wythers is attacking anyone who voted for or suspected me, and Pomm is coming under pressure for his vote. Therefore, it was a smart move for an FM to dissapear from that particular train.
Lists wythers as a OMGUS first suspect, Erenford as second based on only speaking when spoken to, and probably lurking silently. Big accusation for someone without many posts himself... Lists a load of semi suspects and semi trusted, Fell prominently at the top of the list. "But I wouldn't ave killed im guv! Onest! Look, I trusted im right?"
Pulls plumm up for not contributing. Pot, meet mr. kettle...
protects merry, attacking thorne for making it.
Jumps onto the Mallister train to help finish a lynch. Had previously said he disliked the lack of posting. I have little problem with this, as if i wasn't a few minutes late i'd have done the same during a middle of the night toilet brake.
Does a big reread of Fell. Very safe person for a FM to reread, as they know exactly who Fell was right or wrong about. If Fell was totally wrong, then it's a very very safe road to follow...
Suddenly comes back not so keen on Grandison. This is after he defended him yesterday. Promises a later re read and pressure. Could this be distancing?

Thats my "as i go" while re-reading notes. Tollet says very little, does very little, and commits very little to very little. The only real bold moves he makes is accusing others in a similar position to him of doing the same. He risks few links, says very little that's particularly bold, and tends to act in a manner an attention shy FM who feels they have to at least seem to be contributing would.

Now I'm no superstar at making cases, but I really don't like the fact that he tried to grab the glory for my panic Tried to claim it's what he intended all along... And that's why he applied pressure. Sure, he wanted to apply pressure because I was making bad puns. He expected it to make me crack. Sure.

Moving on from here, he soon sees that doubting my innocence isn't turning into a good place to be with the pressure on Pomm Pomm (Who i feel less and less bad about as time goes on. Maybe it was a bit of an OMGUS, i'll maybe reread another day if i survive and he does too) and Wythers attacking anyone on my train. Suddenly, he feels he doesn't feel right about his vote being on me and jumps off. But wait, wasn't he the architect of this whole thing, the man who planned my collapse?

From here there's lots of pottle, kettle, blacking, there's a promised re-read on someone he previously defended, and most telling a full motion picture re-read on the one person we know was innocent. Think about it, if he's an FM, and knows Fells list lacks any FMs, then the easiest way for him to look helpfull is to do a huge re-read on Fell, using their statements to build cases on people.

Wow. I feel worse about him that i ever dreamed i would. So, [b]Tollett[/b], is it time we flushed you away?

[House Dondarrion]

[b] remove vote [/b] see my edit above

[House Dondarrion]

[quote name='House Connington' post='1312925' date='Apr 14 2008, 05.18']And I don't like Pommingham's last post either. If you like the case on Florent, why not vote for him?[/quote]


You are right its definately there, but its not a cross post with Fell the word either gives that away.

Not that it matters. Although I still stand by that most of your Pushing the Pommingham case came after a lot of other people had expressed opinions on it.

Thank you for answering my questions.