Mafia Mini a la surprise

[West]

Double post.

[Whiskeyjack]

[quote name='Katarina die Siegerin' post='1377868' date='May 30 2008, 20.59']Harlot- I think your placement in the lynchmob signifies your innocence.[/quote]

Things people need to ask themselves about Harlot.

1) Why did Mexal attack me when he did? Would he do it without any provocation? I doubt it. So he had to have a reason. And the only other big thing going on at that time was my case on Harlot. Like I said before, I think he could have been attempting to distract us from it.

2) Why did Harlot vote for Mexal instead of me? He set us up to be mostly equal from his perspective. Then he voted for Mexal, even though I had more votes, and he was about to leave for the night. There are 2 possible answers.

a) He's innocent and he felt it would be more difficult to get the votes necessary to lynch me (as Gert implied earlier). But if thats the case, then can you answer how he could be so confident that West and Kat wouldn't be willing to vote for me?

b) He's guilty and he felt it was more important to distance from Mexal than it was to attempt to lynch me.


Now, I'm not saying that Harlot is the only suspect. I certainly have to acknowledge that his vote has me questioning things and looking at other players. But I really don't think he should be crossed off of anybody's suspect lists either. There is, without question, a realistic scenario in which he could be evil.

Also, keep in mind that this is a CF game, and Mexal loves to manipulate votes in a CF game when he is FM.

If I live to day 2, then I'll look back through the posts by West, Kat, and VSM, to see if I can uncover anything there. Doubt I'm going to make the effort to do it tonight...playing a video game right now.

[Week]

Everyone awoke, startled by the sudden sound of one of Mozart's concertos blasting from what seemed like everywhere. Eyes darting around, they all scanned the area looking for anything that seemed out of sorts. It was an unsettling morning with a queer haze around them and the humidity was oppressive. The silence was deafening, and their fear was palpable. Breaking through the quiet was a blood curdling scream, someone saw him.

His shirt torn off, resting against a rock with his chest puffed out and his arms splayed behind him. Entrails were everywhere, his stomach was savagely cut open. On his chest, painted in blood, was an Austrian flag.

Whiskeyjack has been killed.

It is day 2.

7 players remain: AutumnEvenings, Gertrude, Harlot, Kat, Ser Spider, VerySmallMonster, West.

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

7 players have not voted: AutumnEvenings, Gertrude, Harlot, Kat, Ser Spider, VerySmallMonster, West.

There are 28 hours left in the day.

[West]

So it looks like I will spend the day defending myself against FM accusations.

Sure. I am the second FM. That's what you want to hear, and that's what you want to believe.

So after you lynch me and I turn up innocent, you'll realize you have wasted a day and a lynch. At that time, you'll need to start doing what you should be doing now... looking for the killer.

I am starting with a reread of Harlot and Gert.

After BSG is over.

edit: Dang. The previews for next weeks episode were better than this week's entire show.

[Harlot]

1 FM down. Nice work Innos. :cheers:

1 WJ down. No healer or healer reserved for some reason. Either way it was a bold FM move that the FM saw as worth the risk of being blocked. To me that means WJ was a real threat to someone or his death would potentially PI a FM. I don't think that FM would risk a N1 block on a set-up/misdirection NK. I don't think D2 that WJ's death particularly clears anyone or makes anyone PI so I'll start by looking at his short list: Kat, West and VSM. ( You all will want to add Harlot to that list. )

To me Kat looks the worst of these, then West than VSM.

WJ had actually made somewhat of a case against Kat, she did not participate in the lynch. Her lack of support and then support of WJ's case on me lets her play both sides of his death.

West looks to have been hedging his vote and was cajoled into voting Mex. The NK could have just been plain pissed at WJ for being cornered intro voting his partner.

VSM remains a mystery to me.

I am enjoying some Kentucky bourbon tonight so more creative or less cohesive thoughts may come tonight, but it's already 11:15 here so likely more tomorrow EST.

[VerySmallMonster]

Umm...West, that seems a bit premature. A few people saying during the night that you are one of several players who makes sense as a partner to Mexal does not make you the inevitable lynch today, so why the resigned attitude?

[VerySmallMonster]

Harlot, you don't think WJ was killed because he was VVVPI?

[West]

Ummm... [s]Targ[/s] Piper et. al.

Could you fix the final vote count for day 1. You have VSM as vote 5, but it was me. I believe her vote was on Harlot (though not 100% sure of that.)

[West]

[quote name='VerySmallMonster' post='1377930' date='May 30 2008, 21.16']Umm...West, that seems a bit premature. A few people saying during the night that you are one of several players who makes sense as a partner to Mexal does not make you the inevitable lynch today, so why the resigned attitude?[/quote]
I came up on the short list of 3 of the 4 players posting during night (numbr 4 being me.) 4 people needed to lynch. Yeah. That pretty much brings out the pessimist in me.

[Harlot]

[quote name='VerySmallMonster' post='1377943' date='May 30 2008, 22.25']Harlot, you don't think WJ was killed because he was VVVPI?[/quote]

Yes. But also means he'd be the most likely to draw a heal, that's what I meant by that I believe the FM felt that NK'ing him was worth the risk of being blocked on N1. Also the healer cannot protect themsleves so it could be WJ was the healer too. Which would suck.

[AutumnEvenings]

Hmm.

Not all that surprised at Mexal being an FM.

Speculating on good roles is naughty and all, but I'm betting Whiskeyjack wasn't our roled player, because he would have made himself bulletproof. :P

If our roled player chose to make themselves a finder and investigated anyone but Whiskeyjack last night, I strongly suggest they come out, regardless of the result. Because with 7 of us, 2 VPIs (or 1 VPI and one guilty) would be pretty nifty, and there's no point in keeping that close to your chest since you might die without revealing that info.

Of course, if you did investigate Whiskeyjack, don't claim, because healer threat (which doesn't seem to have been that effective last night :().

And I may or may not be the roled player and have chosen healer. ;)

I think Whiskeyjack was killed for being VPI and a good player/big threat, and I pity the FM who has to face him in the spoilers. :P

I'll need to reread to look for a partner. I don't feel as strongly about Harlot as Whiskeyjack did. I'll get back to you on all this.

Sadly, I have to be up at ungodly early hours tomorrow (hence why I'm at home and sober now :P) and won't be around again until 2 pm Mountain. I doubt I'll be checking the thread before I leave in the morning, so I'll try to get to it all now. Appologies in advance for the absence.

[West]

[quote name='VerySmallMonster' post='1377943' date='May 30 2008, 21.25']Harlot, you don't think WJ was killed because he was VVVPI?[/quote]
WJ could have been killed for a couple of reasons.

He is dangerous for Team Evil to keep around.
He was on the right track with his suspects.

VVVPI isn't one of them. Recalling my four scenarios, the one I felt was least likely (Mex FM, WJ innocent) turned out to be right. However barring the night kill, the chance that WJ/Mex were partners and the fight was staged would always be a possibility.

edit: Wow. No one else even considers this a possibility? Dang!

[Week]

[quote name='West' post='1377948' date='May 30 2008, 23.29']Ummm... [s]Targ[/s] Piper et. al.

Could you fix the final vote count for day 1. You have VSM as vote 5, but it was me. I believe her vote was on Harlot (though not 100% sure of that.)[/quote]
Fixed. Sorry about the brain fart. :P

[AutumnEvenings]

Ok.

First, I have very mixed feelings on Spidey. Initially, I pretty much ruled him out. Mexal's tone in his response to Spidey's list of all our names translated, plus Spidey's behavior during the Mexal/Whiskeyjack thing made me feel like he and Mexal weren't likely to be partners. But the more I read, the more...ugh he seemed. He didn't drop it, never investigated other things going on in the thread, tried to lynch Whiskeyjack over Mexal...sometimes the too obvious is actually true.

Second, VSM still looks pretty bad to me. I didn't really like her vote on Harlot before, and reading it now with the knowledge that Mexal was evil...well, basically, the big thing going on in the thread was the Mex/WJ thing and we were all more or less stating our opinions of it and of them. Weirdly, she quotes Gert who says she thinks Mexal comes off worst (but suspects Harlot more) and says she (VSM) agrees with it but then says: [quote name='VSM']I don't think that WJ being defensive says much about his alignment, but I also don't think Mexal questioning him on it is suspicious, especially on day 1.[/quote] So...she wasn't agreeing with Gert really, but made it look like she was. And then tried to shove the momentum back to Harlot. There's also nothing which conclusively (or even suggestively) rules her [i]out[/i] as a partner.

Gert is suspicious as well due to similiar reasoning, but less so since...I felt like VSM going back to Harlot was more opportunistic, whereas Gert kinda led the charge, which is more risky behavior. CF, blah blah, but that's my gut for now.

I didn't really care for Harlot's list of players/suspicions [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=28657&view=findpost&p=1377506"]here[/url]. It seems weird that he only chose to comment on some people but that two of the people he chose to comment on he had nothing to [i]say[/i] anything about. (VSM and Spidey, with nothing much more to go on with Gert either). And in the same post, he was specificly asked how he felt about Mexal but didn't answer because he needed to reread. Which...he wasn't being asked for a case, just how he felt. But he then voted for Mexal in his next post (as opposed to Whiskeyjack or Ser Spider.) Distancing? Maybe, but it wasn't at all clear that Mexal was going down yet, so then...why bother? Or why not be more aggressive rather than claiming the need to reread?

Kat wasn't around much so it's very very hard for me to say. Being the third to ask the question, yeah, not great, but...eh. I didn't find her behavior towards the Harlot stuff that weird either. I definitely need to see more on her though.

West is very hard for me to read. Him being gone and not interacting [i]at all[/i] with Mexal sucks. It makes it impossible to gauge them. He did want Whiskeyjack and Spidey over Mexal, but he didn't seem to actively make a huge push for it. I really don't know. His over-reaction "I'm doomed, doomed, doomed" seems off, and I didn't like his "I hope the one-shot finder clears me" also bothers me (it's like asking to be investigated and then banking that you won't be). But he really didn't seem to think Whiskeyjack was made VPI. Ugh.

I think I'd have to say I suspect, in order:
1) VSM
2) West
3) Spidey
4) Kat
5) Harlot
6) Gert

[Kat]

To address a few things...


[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1377546' date='May 30 2008, 13.46']I still don't understand why [Kat] would have seriously found our votes to be suspicious. Unusual, perhaps, but not suspicious. She never really answered my questions. In fact, instead of defending the position, she backtracked from it.[/quote]

This is basically true. In fact, I can't think of a single thing I've said this game which I want to stick to, including the part about being able to recognize WJ when evil, if I said that at all. :dunce: Anyway, among the other things I want to retract is the part where I said I thought Harlot was definitely innocent...I still rank him as a lower suspect than West (due to his vote for Mexal at a key time), but I forgot that this morning I was willing to vote for him because WJ and Mexal's argument came off as a distraction to me. :idea:

Look, we only have one bad guy left. Can't we just run through the lynch list and do me...uh...after West and Harlot?


Anyway, here's a summary of this morning's happenings. The idea is that I don't make any sense for Mexal's partner if you actually read the argument he was trying to make. The big distracting argument between WJ and Mexal was based on this premise:

Kat: (Serious, but nonsensical) argument for leaving vote on Mexal sandwiched between two jokes.
WJ: Hey, your argument doesn't make sense Kat! Explain plz!
Mexal: That's because it's a JOKE and you're OVERREACTING Whiskeyjack. You ALWAYS DO THIS when evil.
WJ: No, and Kat's argument still makes no sense and seems like a serious vote to me.
Mexal: No, it's a joke and you're evil!
<repeat ad nauseam>

1) Why would Mexal be arguing my vote was a joke if I were his partner? Wouldn't he want the distancing in case he died? (Which is likely, when, you know, he picks a fight with WJ. That tends to be a risky move often leading to death.)

2) Why would Mexal invest so much in a direct defense (saying my vote for him was a joke, so my post made sense overall) of his own partner?

3) His own partner, who is, by the way, voting for him at this time?



Here's a bunch of quotes in one place in case you forgot what happened.


[quote name='Katarina die Siegerin' post='1376359' date='May 29 2008, 23.31']Harlot does not seem especially evil to me based on Whiskeyjack's reasoning. WJ's post feels like an overreaction. If he is evil, I am going to spank his ass!! :tantrum:


Vote remains on Mexal until WJ explains why he's following Mexal's votes.


Deutsche Fußballnationalmannschaft!![/quote]


My first post.


[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1376607' date='May 30 2008, 05.57']I'm not following Mexal. Mexal obviously has some sort of pre-cognition ability that allows him to guess my votes before I make them. So he's clearly following me.

Do you really see a problem here? I mean, really? If so, why? Whats suspicious about our votes?

The reasons for my votes are pretty clear. The first was a joke (AE called you Pless, so I decided to act like unJon) and the second came with a case. Neither one has anything to do with Mexal. You should be able to see that without me having to spell it out for you.[/quote]

Aw WJ, I love you too. :love:

(This is the post which Mexal will later argue with.)

[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1376675' date='May 30 2008, 06.38']How is it overdefensive? I asked questions that I want Kat to answer. At the same time, I explained my votes, just in case she was genuinely missing something.

Calling that overdefensive is more than a little nitpicky on your part. Are you suggesting that when somebody asks you a question, if you're innocent you are only allowed to dismiss it with a lame joke? Providing a serious answer is just too much for you?[/quote]


[quote name='Ser Spidutch' post='1376690' date='May 30 2008, 06.43']Kat, I believe, was not serious. Yet you replied scientifically.[/quote]


[quote name='Mexal der Mann' post='1376693' date='May 30 2008, 06.43']Nah. It's the tone.



The use of really twice makes this seem like you're making a bigger deal out of it than it was. I can't see her being completely serious yet you took it as a direct accusation against you then turned it around on her.

You then went on and explained each of your votes like we didn't know exactly what they are. All you had to say was "I'm not following Mexal as I made a case on Harlot and he didn't" and that would have been sufficient but instead you decided to ask rhetorical questions and overly defend yourself.

It seemed out of place and no amount of taking my words and extracting meanings I never suggested is going to change that.[/quote]

Mexal (and Spider) call my post a joke. But seriously, why would Mexal base his whole argument with WJ around his own partner? Doesn't that just bring me into the spotlight too much?

You can see how he keeps bringing me up before the argument degenerates into your standard WJ/Mexal argumentfest.

[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1376717' date='May 30 2008, 06.53']She'll obviously have to answer on whether or not it was serious, but I don't see any indication of a joke in this sentence.



Before that one, yes. After, yes. But that line looks serious to me. And if it is, I want to know why she found my votes suspicious, in relation to your votes.



So now you are the judge of "all I had to say"? I [u]wanted[/u] to explain my votes. Felt it was more useful to do that, rather than just dismiss her apparent concern with a wave of my hand. As I said before, in case she was somehow missing something....I wanted to get a response out of the way, so that she could focus on answering my own questions toward her.

Still think you are being extremely nitpicky over this. I mean, c'mon. My tone bothered you? Really? And how was my tone an indication of guilt for me? I don't have that tone when I'm innocent? I only have it when I'm evil?[/quote]


[quote name='Mexal der Mann' post='1376736' date='May 30 2008, 07.01']So she jokes before that sentence and after that sentence yet you take that as completely serious? That makes a whole lot of sense.




A judge? No. But it's why I think you were over defensive.



Maybe I am but you can hardly fault me for not dismissing it with a wave of the hand. I mean, you [u]wanted[/u] to explain your votes and I [u]wanted[/u] to call you out for being over defensive since that's what I believe you were being.

As for your tone, did I ever say you were guilty because of it? Did I ever say that you only take that tone when you're evil and not when you're innocent? Here we go again. I'm not allowed to point out something I see without jumping to the immediate conclusion that you're evil WJ instead of innocent WJ? Did you ever think that I wanted to judge your answers, fuel discussion and get a read on you?

Really? I mean, really?[/quote]


[quote name='Mexal der Mann' post='1376926' date='May 30 2008, 08.12']Since when is it a requirement to vote when entering an argument? I guess it's now a prerequisite so [b]Whiskeyjack[/b]. Does that lend weight to my words now? Are you thrilled that you coaxed a vote out of me?



I could care less what you conclude. You expect me to come up with a magic answer on what evil WJ does versus Innocent WJ when you know it doesn't exist. I didn't like your tone and I didn't like your over-defensiveness so I called it out. You first turned around a joke statement from Kat on her and now you're turning my attacks on you onto me. You do this ALL THE FUCKING TIME, especially when you're evil. Now you're going to tell me that you do that when you're innocent as well and that me thinking that you're suspicious because of it is a clear sign that I don't know your playstyle well enough to meta-analyze you just like you said to Spidey. That's how you'll dismiss me and then you'll attack me, twist my words into something I've never said and draw conclusions from those twists that make me look worse than you originally did.

You know what, after typing that all out, I do think you're evil. Enjoy.[/quote]


[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1376978' date='May 30 2008, 08.42']1) It's not true that I am more likely to do that when I'm evil.

2) When somebody says something, I seek to understand the reasoning behind their statement/question/theory. If the person is evil, their bullshit statements will often be revealed as such when they fail to provide the logical reasoning necessary to explain [i]why[/i] they were pursuing that particular line of thought.

In Kat's case, I wanted to know why she thought it was suspicious that we both voted for AE and then both voted for Harlot. Did she think we were partners? Would partners do that? Did she think I was symping you? Did she think I was attacking players who you had made into easy targets? If so, why? If she really did feel it was suspicious, then I wanted her to explain the logic that established that suspicion.

In your case, you claimed that you were not yet ready to conclude that I was 'evil WJ' and that you were 'evaluating' my responses. I wanted to know your criteria for evaluation. What would have triggered the 'evil WJ' conclusion? What would have triggered the 'innocent WJ' conclusion? If you're asking questions with the express purpose of evaluating my responses, then you should be working off of some set of expectations. If you can't explain what your criteria is, then your claim is suspicious.[/quote]

[AutumnEvenings]

Ok...well, I'm off. I'm not leaving a vote because we're so few, and I'll be back well before day ends. (in like 14 hours, but many of you will sleep through lots of that :P)

[Piper of Chaos]

Actually this mini game is played because I am waiting for more sign-ups to start my big game.


Everyone who is playing here and hasn't signed up yet should do so ASAP..... :pirate:

[VerySmallMonster]

[quote name='AutumnEvenings' post='1378020' date='May 31 2008, 01.14']Second, VSM still looks pretty bad to me. I didn't really like her vote on Harlot before, and reading it now with the knowledge that Mexal was evil...[/quote]
Yeah, there's not to much I can say, but... I thought WJ and Mexal were both more likely innocent than not, so I didn't want to vote for either of them. I thought Harlot's behavior was more suspicious than anything else I saw. I didn't like the vote, and I didn't like the way he dismissed WJ's case, implying that his vote on Ser Spider was because he was concerned about participation.
[quote]well, basically, the big thing going on in the thread was the Mex/WJ thing and we were all more or less stating our opinions of it and of them. Weirdly, she quotes Gert who says she thinks Mexal comes off worst (but suspects Harlot more) and says she (VSM) agrees with it but then says: So...she wasn't agreeing with Gert really, but made it look like she was. And then tried to shove the momentum back to Harlot. There's also nothing which conclusively (or even suggestively) rules her [i]out[/i] as a partner.[/quote] What I meant was that I agreed that I didn't want to vote for either of WJ/mexal, and I did want to vote for Harlot, mostly for the same reasons.

[quote]I didn't really care for Harlot's list of players/suspicions [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=28657&view=findpost&p=1377506"]here[/url]. It seems weird that he only chose to comment on some people but that two of the people he chose to comment on he had nothing to [i]say[/i] anything about. (VSM and Spidey, with nothing much more to go on with Gert either). And in the same post, he was specificly asked how he felt about Mexal but didn't answer because he needed to reread. Which...he wasn't being asked for a case, just how he felt. But he then voted for Mexal in his next post (as opposed to Whiskeyjack or Ser Spider.) Distancing? Maybe, but it wasn't at all clear that Mexal was going down yet, so then...why bother? Or why not be more aggressive rather than claiming the need to reread?[/quote]
Well, he said indicated in the post that you mentioned that he thought he was going to be the most likely lynch. I can see him thinking that it was going to be him or Mexal going down and deciding to do some distancing because of that.

[quote]West is very hard for me to read. Him being gone and not interacting [i]at all[/i] with Mexal sucks. It makes it impossible to gauge them. He did want Whiskeyjack and Spidey over Mexal, but he didn't seem to actively make a huge push for it. I really don't know. His over-reaction "I'm doomed, doomed, doomed" seems off, and I didn't like his "I hope the one-shot finder clears me" also bothers me (it's like asking to be investigated and then banking that you won't be). But he really didn't seem to think Whiskeyjack was made VPI. Ugh.[/quote]
I agree on his reaction today. I can't remember specific instances, but I feel like I've often heard that from FM.

Kat, I find your big defense post suspicious as well. Why would Mexal repeatedly bringing up your post in his attack on WJ based on his reaction to that post mean that you couldn't be partnered? I don't really see how it drags you into the spotlight, or makes it look like you are connected, so I don't see why Mexal would have avoided it.

[Ser Spidey]

[quote name='AutumnEvenings' post='1377956' date='May 31 2008, 05.40']Speculating on good roles is naughty and all, but I'm betting Whiskeyjack wasn't our roled player, because he would have made himself bulletproof. :P

If our roled player chose to make themselves a finder and investigated anyone but Whiskeyjack last night, I strongly suggest they come out, regardless of the result. Because with 7 of us, 2 VPIs (or 1 VPI and one guilty) would be pretty nifty, and there's no point in keeping that close to your chest since you might die without revealing that info.

Of course, if you did investigate Whiskeyjack, don't claim, because healer threat (which doesn't seem to have been that effective last night :( ).

And I may or may not be the roled player and have chosen healer. ;)[/quote]
This post is really really really suspicious to me. Why? AE speculates on the good roles. I've never played with her, but I've spectated SG 3, during which (and in spoilers) she stated repeatedly that she hates it, it hurts the innocents, etc.

[Ser Spidey]

My suspect list:

1. West-his 'I'm getting lynched' post rings totally false. Yesterday he listed Mex behind me and WJ.
2. Harlot-he's not playing his usual game, and this concerns me. See WJ's theory-possible connection with Mex.
3. AE-her role discussion is out of place.
4. Kat-mixed feelings on her
5. VSM-I tend to agree with her and see nothing nefarious about her play. Still, I'd like her to post more and take stronger stances.
6. Gert-see above, but I just trust her more.

[i]I'm off to beach.[/i] :P