Jump to content

Archived

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

Shadowbaby

Mafia 57.5

Recommended Posts

[b]Orkwood[/b],

Starts off with 6 joke posts that are all pretty much one liners. His first post of any substance is responding to Sunderly's list:
[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1536048' date='Sep 29 2008, 17.14']You re-read some members, you build a case against Botley, I like your case against him to some extent, but what gives me a bad feeling about you is that you redeem 2 other players without even rereading them or giving any specific reasons
while you are ready to vote for Stonetree and me again without giving any good reasons, maybe you are trying to make some trust you then build cases out of nothing against other innocents get them lynched with the help of the ones you trying to get on your side? Sound too FMish if you ask me.[/quote]
I've mentioned this post before and I still don't like it. Much of it is blatantly untrue, the only truth is that Sunderly doesn't mention his reread of Merlyn. Otherwise though, Sunderly gives reasons (whether you agree with them or not) for the hierarchy he creates. I've also never been a fan of the "it sounds FMish" sort of call out. It is very weak, particularly when it isn't associated with a vote. The attempted spin of "building cases out of nothing against other innocents..etc." just sounds ridiculous. No further attempt to find Sunderly's partners either.

He also has some strange posts like this one:
[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1536060' date='Sep 29 2008, 17.19']If I was a FM I would try to actually impact others and tempt them to join me in a crusade against an innocent, and man it was so early in the game back when you started attacking me, how could I be able to attack anyone with 100% assurance?
Well now come to think of it, you attacked me that early in the game like you knew I was a FM while you didnt have any evidence nor case against me.[/quote]
The style of the post here bothers me, it just sounds so outlandish and overstated (...join me in a crusade). Also, plays the 'woe is me' card complaining about how serious Merlyn's attack was early in the game (it really wasn't). Very overdefensive.

[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1536433' date='Sep 29 2008, 20.33']Well I cant be against his late appearance as he explains it, but voting for someone who is posting and actually contributing is not wise in my book.

Well he never mentions what logic makes him go against Sunderly and Merlyn.

final thoughts: He hasnt posted much, maybe he is busy, but still it makes me feel bad about him, I wouldnt still vote him I need stronger reasons for it.[/quote]
Very wishy-washy reread of Stonetree, who he could be connected with as well as Botley.

First case by Orkwood is on day 2:
[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1536455' date='Sep 29 2008, 21.01']Final thoughts: [b]Wynch[/b] acts very suspicious, he had 5-6 one liner posts at the beginning of the game all of them joke posts, he disappeared and when he came back he did just some speculations to put off any upcoming pressures toward him, I dont like the fact that he doesnt get involved much and all his logic relies mostly on feelings.
As I mentioned in my other post I like player who are contributing even if they maybe evil, I like a contributing evil more than an inactive innocent, you can disagree but thats my opinion.[/quote]
It isn't terrible, though Wynch was a pretty easy target. For someone who claims they are active, it is strange it took them until day 2 to post a case and actually cast a meaningful vote. Orkwood's only other vote in the GAME was at the beginning of Day 1 on Farwynd. Even if that is the person he really wanted to lynch in the end, he never pushed it at all.

This reaction to Wynch's reveal feels off to me as well: [quote name='House Orkwood' post='1536483' date='Sep 29 2008, 21.33']hmm... now we are in a tight spot.
If you are what you claim to be, we gotta do rereads again.[/quote]
"We are in a tight spot." Maybe it is just a bit of confusion, however I don't view a finder revealing and CIing someone (just wish it wasn't me, although it does make it easier to believe him) as putting us in a tight spot. A tight spot would be losing the finder or being at endgame.

Most recent defense:
[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1536783' date='Sep 30 2008, 06.33']I dont want to appear active, because Im active, anyone who skims the thread can see it, I usually try to post with logic
and not some speculations or copy pasting others thoughts.
I defended my partner which is very active in my rereads and he is Saltcliffe which was founded Innocent, so you dont have a case here.
Now you blame me for building cases against others? Well excuse me but this is Mafia you should do rereads and buld cases on players who are most suspecting, and he was suspicious to a great sum before revealing.[/quote]
Sorry buddy, you really aren't that active if your lone day 1 vote is at the beginning of the day and you don't revisit it at all. That to me shows that you don't value your vote (our only tool against the FM, well other than arguing). Orkwood certainly can't be blamed for building cases, but he could for building "case" as he's only had the one. I still need some response regarding the 'partner' slip, I don't see any reason as to why Orkwood would say partner there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll also just briefly give my thoughts on Stonetree. Basically, Stonetree needs to say more. At this point, there isn't much that makes him suspicious and there is nothing that makes me think he is innocent. The only information worth noting at this point is that he is not likely to be connected to Merlyn, Sunderly, or Farwynd (not terribly unlikely, but more so than the next two)..leaving Orkwood or Botley the only likely partners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For anyone that wants to reread Botley:
[quote name='House Botley' post='1534857' date='Sep 28 2008, 23.12']Hi there!

[b]Stonetree[/b], because nobody else mentioned him yet. We shouldn't allow people to stay under radars.[/quote]
[quote name='House Botley' post='1534901' date='Sep 28 2008, 23.49'][quote name='Wynch']hmmm.. then im gonna say Botley cuz no ones mentioned you either[/quote]
I am glad you share my way of thinking!
[/quote]
[quote name='House Botley' post='1535549' date='Sep 29 2008, 13.15']Well, Greyjoy seems to be most reliable lynch for now. Am I happy with this? Yes. There is a case, not ideal even for day 1, but still, we have nothing better.
Most likely, we have two killers among us (three would be overkil and one would mean we couldn't access anything by investigation connections), so we can afford two innocent lynches before losing. Good enough position.
So, [b]Greyjoy[/b], for case made already.[/quote]
Well, that was exhausteding eh? If Botley is innocent, no offense, they need to work on what to do when innocent as they did pretty much the opposite. 3 posts. Two jokes. The other was a bandwagon vote when there was no bandwagon (and no case) and the day had 8+ hours left. I'll take a quick look at who mentioned Botley because there certainly isn't going to be anyone ruled out as their partner other than Greyjoy, Wynch, or myself. Can't decide what I think of the Stonetree vote, will have to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Saltcliffe' post='1537328' date='Sep 30 2008, 14.02']I'll also just briefly give my thoughts on Stonetree. Basically, Stonetree needs to say more. At this point, there isn't much that makes him suspicious and there is nothing that makes me think he is innocent. The only information worth noting at this point is that he is not likely to be connected to Merlyn, Sunderly, or Farwynd (not terribly unlikely, but more so than the next two)..leaving Orkwood or Botley the only likely partners.[/quote]

Stonetree and Orkwood have actually defended each other. I am pretty torn on that as a partnered connection. It has happened before with less experienced players. :unsure:

I was looking at Orkwood, but you have covered him pretty well, and I agree with you. [b]Orkwood[/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1537343' date='Sep 30 2008, 14.15']Stonetree and Orkwood have actually defended each other. I am pretty torn on that as a partnered connection. It has happened before with less experienced players. :unsure:

I was looking at Orkwood, but you have covered him pretty well, and I agree with you. [b]Orkwood[/b][/quote]
That and there is no CF.

The only person that really cleared themselves of being partners with Botley is Sunderly by virtue of his vote. I suppose Farwynd sort of. More people need to fooking post!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is day 2.

7 players remain: Farwynd, Merlyn, Orkwood, Saltcliffe, Stonetree, Sunderly, Wynch.

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

2 votes for Orkwood (Saltcliffe, Sunderly)
1 vote for Wynch (Orkwood)

4 players have not voted: Farwynd, Merlyn, Stonetree, Wynch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Saltcliffe' post='1537338' date='Sep 30 2008, 14.12']I'll take a quick look at who mentioned Botley because there certainly isn't going to be anyone ruled out as their partner other than Greyjoy, Wynch, or myself. Can't decide what I think of the Stonetree vote, will have to read.[/quote]

I mentioned Botley. Sorry for not being all that active, but I'm both busy with work and feeling slightly under the weather today.

Anyway, as you say there aren't really many connections you can draw from Botley's posts. Looking at Stonetree, Merlyn and Orkwood while Botley's train was forming they all conveniently ignored him (Orkwood said he like the case slightly but also suspected it's author, Sunderly, Merlyn didn't even mention him while attacking Orkwood and Stonetree was asking other people inquisitive questions while sporting a semi-serious vote on Saltcliffe from the beginning of the game).

Can't really decide what to think of the Stonetree vote either. While it could be a typical (pretty ineffective) distancing move Botley was a rather atypical player, and as I said distancing would be a minor concern in a CFless game.

I'd say of my three initial suspects from day two Merlyn is the one least likely of being in a partnership with any of the others, so I'd approve of a Stonetree or Orkwood lynch today. Since the case on [b]Orkwood[/b] seems convincing then let it be him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm going to [b]remove vote[/b] and force more people to check in and discuss. Orkwood may not necessarily be the lynch today, we'll see.

I would like to see what other people think of Stonetree, Farwynd, Merlyn, and Sunderly (to a lesser extent...not going to PI him though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing I noticed today on Farwynd that I didn't notice yesterday was his fixation on Merlyn. He did carry it over today, but since he wasn't able to find partnerships with him, dropped to Orkwood and Stonetree as possible suspects. Still finding him not likely to be guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I need to look at Merlyn in context at home (not just his post). Even still I picked up on something I thought a little odd and I want to double check it. Seems to me, that Merlyn is doing a really good job of trying to suck up to Saltcliffe, but like I said, I want to read things in context first.

I would put him in the middle right now, until I can look a little deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Saltcliffe' post='1537321' date='Sep 30 2008, 12.58'][b]Orkwood[/b],

Starts off with 6 joke posts that are all pretty much one liners. His first post of any substance is responding to Sunderly's list:

I've mentioned this post before and I still don't like it. Much of it is blatantly untrue, the only truth is that Sunderly doesn't mention his reread of Merlyn. Otherwise though, Sunderly gives reasons (whether you agree with them or not) for the hierarchy he creates. I've also never been a fan of the "it sounds FMish" sort of call out. It is very weak, particularly when it isn't associated with a vote. The attempted spin of "building cases out of nothing against other innocents..etc." just sounds ridiculous. No further attempt to find Sunderly's partners either.

He also has some strange posts like this one:

The style of the post here bothers me, it just sounds so outlandish and overstated (...join me in a crusade). Also, plays the 'woe is me' card complaining about how serious Merlyn's attack was early in the game (it really wasn't). Very overdefensive.


Very wishy-washy reread of Stonetree, who he could be connected with as well as Botley.

First case by Orkwood is on day 2:

It isn't terrible, though Wynch was a pretty easy target. For someone who claims they are active, it is strange it took them until day 2 to post a case and actually cast a meaningful vote. Orkwood's only other vote in the GAME was at the beginning of Day 1 on Farwynd. Even if that is the person he really wanted to lynch in the end, he never pushed it at all.

This reaction to Wynch's reveal feels off to me as well:
"We are in a tight spot." Maybe it is just a bit of confusion, however I don't view a finder revealing and CIing someone (just wish it wasn't me, although it does make it easier to believe him) as putting us in a tight spot. A tight spot would be losing the finder or being at endgame.

Most recent defense:

Sorry buddy, you really aren't that active if your lone day 1 vote is at the beginning of the day and you don't revisit it at all. That to me shows that you don't value your vote (our only tool against the FM, well other than arguing). Orkwood certainly can't be blamed for building cases, but he could for building "case" as he's only had the one. I still need some response regarding the 'partner' slip, I don't see any reason as to why Orkwood would say partner there.[/quote]
About the partner slip I should say that, I was being accused of defending my possible partner by claiming that I like active users, I actually was talking about you in that post, it was a reread on you that Merlyn commented on it. so I said I was defending you because I said I liked active players, so if you and I are partners we are just RIs because our CF has investigated you.
Apart from that, I thought you didnt like people copy pasting others thoughts? You just copy pasted Merlyn's post saying I give outlandish statements? So much for original thinking?

I was rereading players when Wynch revealed, I couldnt believe him right away, so I said we are in a tight spot, because after my vote on him he revealed as a CF so what should I have said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1537343' date='Sep 30 2008, 13.15']Stonetree and Orkwood have actually defended each other. I am pretty torn on that as a partnered connection. It has happened before with less experienced players. :unsure:

I was looking at Orkwood, but you have covered him pretty well, and I agree with you. [b]Orkwood[/b][/quote]
You practice jumping on the bandwagon as a hobby it seems?
Where I have defended him? give me a solid evidence of that Mr.Experienced?

You claim to be an experienced player while you keep jumping on the bandwagon and hiding behind other players thought!
[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1537343' date='Sep 30 2008, 13.15']I was looking at Orkwood, but you have covered him pretty well, and I agree with you. [b]Orkwood[/b][/quote]
Sorry man but you just blew it by this comment, now Im very suspicious of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Farwynd' post='1537397' date='Sep 30 2008, 13.47']I mentioned Botley. Sorry for not being all that active, but I'm both busy with work and feeling slightly under the weather today.

Anyway, as you say there aren't really many connections you can draw from Botley's posts. Looking at Stonetree, Merlyn and Orkwood while Botley's train was forming they all conveniently ignored him (Orkwood said he like the case slightly but also suspected it's author, Sunderly, Merlyn didn't even mention him while attacking Orkwood and Stonetree was asking other people inquisitive questions while sporting a semi-serious vote on Saltcliffe from the beginning of the game).

Can't really decide what to think of the Stonetree vote either. While it could be a typical (pretty ineffective) distancing move Botley was a rather atypical player, and as I said distancing would be a minor concern in a CFless game.

I'd say of my three initial suspects from day two Merlyn is the one least likely of being in a partnership with any of the others, so I'd approve of a Stonetree or Orkwood lynch today. Since the case on [b]Orkwood[/b] seems convincing then let it be him.[/quote]
Interesting the moment Saltcliffe votes for me Sunderly and Farwynd come voting for me right away, I think I have some rereadings to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1537485' date='Sep 30 2008, 15.31']You practice jumping on the bandwagon as a hobby it seems?
Where I have defended him? give me a solid evidence of that Mr.Experienced?

You claim to be an experienced player while you keep jumping on the bandwagon and hiding behind other players thought!

Sorry man but you just blew it by this comment, now Im very suspicious of you.[/quote]
[quote]QUOTE (House Orkwood @ Sep 29 2008, 17.14)
You re-read some members, you build a case against Botley, I like your case against him to some extent, but what gives me a bad feeling about you is that you redeem 2 other players without even rereading them or giving any specific reasons
[b][color="#0000FF"]while you are ready to vote for Stonetree [/color]and [/b]me again without giving any good reasons, maybe you are trying to make some trust you then build cases out of nothing against other innocents get them lynched with the help of the ones you trying to get on your side? Sound too FMish if you ask me.[/quote]

I gave reasons for all of my decisions. Just because you do not agree with them, doesn't mean I didn't state them.


I stated I had two suspects to look at today, you and Stonetree. I did Stonetree first. Before I could finish with you Saltcliffe posted his case. Look and you will see I clearly stated you were my suspect today BEFORE Saltcliffe's case.

It is this kind of over-reaction that really makes me suspect you more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1536835' date='Sep 30 2008, 08.27'][color="#0000FF"]Right now, I would say the person bothering me the most Orkwood[/color]. It will be lunch before I can reread him. busy day at work today.[/quote]


[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1537156' date='Sep 30 2008, 12.19'][color="#0000FF"]Today it looks like I have Orkwood and Stonetree and the primary suspects.[/color][/quote]


[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1537178' date='Sep 30 2008, 12.32']BTW, this is how I arrived at my current top 2 suspects:

I went on the assumption that Wynch was telling the truth (I do reserve the right to change my mind about this), sothat made him, Saltcliffe and myself as Innocent, leaving me with Farwynd, Orkwood, Merlyn and Stonetree to pick from. Since not a lot has changed since yesterday, I narrowed it down to two (Farwynd and merlyn not being suspected by me yet)[/quote]


[quote name='House Saltcliffe' post='1537231' date='Sep 30 2008, 12.56']What the hell are you talking about Orkwood?[/quote]


[quote name='House Saltcliffe' post='1537321' date='Sep 30 2008, 13.58'][b]Orkwood[/b],

<snip>[/quote]

Get your facts straight before you fly off the handle next time Orkwood. I mentioned you were my suspect 3 times before Saltcliffe's case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re-read on possible Sunderly and Farwynd partnership
[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1535461' date='Sep 29 2008, 11.29']pot/kettle anyone? (although his last post is longer, none of the others were)

The one thing I really don't like is accussing others of the thing you are doing. So FMish.

I'm back for my lunch break, and then will return later. I'll try and pop on as work slows down.[/quote]
Stealing others thoughts and accusing Merlyn of FMish behavior.



[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1535527' date='Sep 29 2008, 12.02']Greyjoy starts off with a RP vote, engages in some RP, removes vote and leaves for 12+ hours. No read at all on him.


ok, time is up.

would vote for: Stonetree or Orkwood

no read on: Greyjoy

wouldn't be too happy to vote for: Merlyn or Saltcliffe


be back as soon as I can to do the last 3[/quote]


[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1535587' date='Sep 29 2008, 12.44']Botley: has made 3 posts, one RP vote, one RP statement and the vote on Greyjoy. I am not sure of the “case” on Greyjoy that he is talking about and it is not linked or quoted. This puts him in the position of going for an easy target I think, and therefore he gets added to my “willing to vote” list.

Wynch: I really didn’t like his RP of his first few posts. More than a few FM have done this. I don’t like the reason he voted just before leaving either. He has no substance as of yet. He’s goes on my willing to vote list, but in last place.

[b]Farwynd: While I didn’t care overly much for his RP vote (the explaining that it was elaborate joke) I am satisfied with his responses and don’t think I’d vote him today.[/b]

would vote for: Stonetree, Orkwood, Botley (in any order) and Wynch last

no read on: Greyjoy

wouldn't be too happy to vote for: Merlyn, Saltcliffe or Farwynd.

Why don’t we start the train on [b]Botley[/b] rolling and see where it heads?[/quote]
The first time he mentions Farwynd, he says he likes and wont vote for him, nice defense.

[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1535610' date='Sep 29 2008, 13.01']Yes, I read it. I knew you wouldn't be here and I wanted it clear my thoughts were based on just one post, therefore the least well reasoned of my placements.


I'm not exactly "going after" Orkwood, just saying he's on my radar and if the train heads that way, I have no problem joining it. [b]I did not like the Greyjoy/Farwynd case[/b]. Thought it was beyond silly. Might be different if it was not Farwynd Greyjoy had his vote on. The passive style is way to easy to hide in. I certainly prefer agressive posters (except when they are being agressive towards me of course ;) ) Don't think I am overly agressive myself, but I am more definate in my reasons.[/quote]
When sees Farwynd may be in danger just dismisses any possibility by saying the idea was silly.

[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1537178' date='Sep 30 2008, 11.32']BTW, this is how I arrived at my current top 2 suspects:

I went on the assumption that Wynch was telling the truth (I do reserve the right to change my mind about this), sothat made him, Saltcliffe and myself as Innocent, leaving me with Farwynd, Orkwood, Merlyn and Stonetree to pick from. Since not a lot has changed since yesterday, I narrowed it down to two (Farwynd and merlyn not being suspected by me yet)[/quote]
Again Farwynd is on his innocent list, well I dont know about you but if one defense is enough for him to accuse me of being Botely's partner while we dont even know if Stonetree , here we have more than enough to take him as a partner to Farwynd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1537521' date='Sep 30 2008, 15.53']Again Farwynd is on his innocent list, well I dont know about you but if one defense is enough for him to accuse me of being Botely's partner while we dont even know if Botley was evil or not, here we have more than enough to take him as a partner to Farwynd.[/quote]

When did I accuse you of being Botley's partner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='House Sunderly' post='1537506' date='Sep 30 2008, 14.41']I gave reasons for all of my decisions. Just because you do not agree with them, doesn't mean I didn't state them.


I stated I had two suspects to look at today, you and Stonetree. I did Stonetree first. Before I could finish with you Saltcliffe posted his case. Look and you will see I clearly stated you were my suspect today BEFORE Saltcliffe's case.

It is this kind of over-reaction that really makes me suspect you more.[/quote]
Over Reaction? Dude I had 3 votes before Saltcliffe removed his vote on me and that meant I needed only one vote to be lynched and right now Im 50% through so dont tell me Im overreacting.

Share this post


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

×