MAFIA 58

[House Upcliff]

Interesting points Botley. I have to admit I am liking you more today than I did yesterday.

The only thing I would disagree on is the not remembering the case he was interested. Maybe I am just an idiot (and I know I am, and have a lot of distractions). This morning I KNEW there was someone I wanted to look at based on an end of day discussion, but I couldn't remember who it was or what the reason was. it does happen.


Of course looking today, I decided I was pretty much an idiot for thinking that, it was all passive/active suspicions stuff between us.

[House Ashford]

[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1569448' date='Oct 27 2008, 18.56']Oh, and nice job, waiting until I had made it clear i'd be gone for the night, so couldn't refute this. Hoping the others would miss my extra little post following the one you quoted which went into more detail on the forgotten case?[/quote]

Nice job leaving when you get under fire. :P

Don't blame me for you not being around.

As for your explanation: it's not very believable. It might be true, but it rather sounds like a lame excuse. And I simply don't buy that you forgot about the case against Farwynd, when I was discussing with Big F for a long time today. Did you notice that while you got no read on everyone?

[House Upcliff]

[quote name='House Botley' post='1569449' date='Oct 27 2008, 19.56']I will go to bed soon and I have no interest to drag the day out longer than needed.


My top suspects are Farwynd, Saltcliffe, Volmark and Orkwood. I feel better about Merlyn and Myre. Goodbrother is not an option.

That leaves Harlaw. I still haven't managed to look for him. Right now I have to say that I felt better about him in the beginning, but his lack of posting (which he explained :grouphug: ) makes it hard to judge him. His last posts have not been too informative. Have to reread him again to get a better picture.[/quote]

I am trying to do more now, but it's hard to come up with original thoughts. This not posting during the day really sucks. Everyone has already posted the obvious things :P

I feel pretty good about Myre right now; Volmark is the top suspect, but I want to look at a few of the others before voting.

I have almost no memory of Farwynd and that can't be good.

[House Clegane]

Ok, the people I wouldn't mind lynching today are Slatcliffe, Volamrk and Orkwood. Volmark is too close to lynch level for comfort, Orkwood has gone so can't defend himself, so I will be voting [b]Saltcliffe[/b]

[House Dondarrion]

[quote name='House Botley' post='1569462' date='Oct 27 2008, 19.00']Nice job leaving when you get under fire. :P

Don't blame me for you not being around.

As for your explanation: it's not very believable. It might be true, but it rather sounds like a lame excuse. And I simply don't buy that you forgot about the case against Farwynd, when I was discussing with Big F for a long time today. Did you notice that while you got no read on everyone?[/quote]


No. Probably because as I keep stating, it wasn't so much a case as a "he also isn't helping"...

You may have evolved that on today, but at the time i said that with more time I would have considered it as an alternative i had a vote on merlyn for not participating and he had started making some effort. You come along showing someone else has posted, but said even less. Sure I would have supported it. Doesn't mean its a case or that it's contradictory for me to then have no reading on him... I was in support of his lynch for no contribution, not for any reading i got on him from what he'd said.

You yourself built it on the fact he hadn't said anything, there was nothing to get a reading off.

Seriously, it's time to take the blinkers off.

[House Dondarrion]

[quote name='House Merlyn' post='1569470' date='Oct 27 2008, 19.08']Ok, the people I wouldn't mind lynching today are Slatcliffe, Volamrk and Orkwood. Volmark is too close to lynch level for comfort, Orkwood has gone so can't defend himself, so I will be voting [b]Saltcliffe[/b][/quote]


Trying to go, not gone.

Mafia has a bad habit of stealing my sleep. :P

[House Clegane]

[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1569472' date='Oct 27 2008, 20.09']Trying to go, not gone.

Mafia has a bad habit of stealing my sleep. :P[/quote]

It turns out that I'd still rather lynch Saltcliffe than you today. So my vote stays for now. I will be back before day end though.

[House Ashford]

Have to go to bed now.

I give [b]Volmark [/b]a try.

Farwynd, Saltcliffe and Orkwood have to wait for tomorrow.

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Botley' post='1569293' date='Oct 27 2008, 18.22']You play a very careful game. You avoid to accuse more than one player at a time, and you are mostly following the majority's opinion. You choose weak targets. You change your opinion when you see that it is not en vogue anymore.

Finally, there is a contradiction that you might want to explain:

Here you say that you consider to support the case that I made on Farwynd. But today you have apparently changed your mind:

No mention of the case against farwynd, a case that you have been considering to follow.

It's also notable how you still try to avoid possible conflicts with stronger players (exception: me). Even if you have no read on these two players, what about the rest?[/quote]I like it, that much of it is pretty similar to my read on him from earlier: [quote name='House Farwynd' post='1568563' date='Oct 27 2008, 11.13'][u]Orkwood-[/u] Generally I have agreed with what they've said. Orkwood seem to be pretty aware, and would like everyone to be aware, of how direct and active Orkwood considers himself to be. Mainly they've interacted with active players (Botley and Myre) and attacked quieter players (Kenning and Merlyn).[/quote]Orkwood was part of the reason I decided to do away with a more innocent category. Initially, he was one that I put there and then after rereading him I thought, "wtf do I think he's innocent for??" I think the contradiction is a very good catch to be honest, definitely more clear a mistake than Volmark's. Most of the time when I'm innocent I have a very good idea of who I am suspicious of. Thus far, I'm not really buying Orkwood's defense either. He starts off trying to play it off cool asking for a real case and no just gut, then admits that it really is a good case ([neo]whoa![/neo]), then his defense is such a hodge podge thrown together of playing innocent because he claims to have no read on most people (bullshit, everyone at this point can break it down a little bit), then decides the contradiction is bullshit and plays the victim, then plays the confident/angry defense demanding Botley go back and reread again...and just for good measure, plays the victim by whining that the case is only coming out because he is about to leave. His defense looks very off balance and completely without any confidence.


[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1569354' date='Oct 27 2008, 18.36']After all, Mafia's as much about what you sit on as what you reveal, as giving away too much too early may cause people to change their play subtly to avoid any traps...[/quote]I also want to call bullshit on this specific point. I'd be ok with Volmark or maybe Saltcliffe today, but right now I think [b]Orkwood[/b] makes a lot of sense. (I haven't cleared Harlaw by any means, but my gut is rumbling a bit less)


Edit by Farwynd- Chillax.

[House Clegane]

I've lost track of where all the votes are, but I'll be back before night for the lynch if necessary.

[House Targaryen]

Merlyn Farwynd. This is an offical warning.

Do not post speculations about players identites on this thread. That goes for quoted comments.

[b]Anyone does this again and they will be Modkilled.[/b]

If you believe someone has posted such info PM me. you could ask always ask them to check there post and edit without quoting the post. If we are not present.

[House Frey]

[quote name='House Myre' post='1569245' date='Oct 27 2008, 23.52']Saltcliffe, I'd really like to hear more from you. Who are your suspects, why did you remove your vote from Volmark?[/quote]

[quote name='House Volmark' post='1568829' date='Oct 27 2008, 20.29']I'll put a vote on [b]Saltcliffe[/b] for the voting me-unvoting me business that Myre pointed out. I agree it's suspicious. First he parrots Myre and then he immediately retracts when called out for it. Looks too much like he's trying to win a popularity contest.[/quote]

The removal of the vote was simple. I tried to add pressure and Volmark just completely blew it off, that annoyed me, but it also gave me the impression that he hold nothing but contempt for me. Since then he has had one post, mentioned a few people and voted one of the most likely to be lynched (myself).

So here:
[b]Vote House Volmark[/b]

And why?
Well first off, I feel your unwillingness to get the lynch is odd, but the fact that afterwards you tried to blame others for the lynch not going through and then stating that a SK would have put the hammer down, strikes me as an attempt to appear PI.

As to other suspects:
Goodbrother is the only other one that stands out to me, the problem though is that I can not figure out why, besides his 1st post, which struck me as trying to hard. He seems to be pretty damn clean.

[House Dayne]

Was Volmark just lynched?
or did someone else than me remove his vote?

ETA: for some reasons I thought Volmark had 4 votes when I removed mine, but apparently he had 3 and is at 4 now. :huh:

Have to go now, will read more in depth later.

[House Targaryen]

It is day 2.

9 players remain: Botley, Farwynd, Goodbrother, Harlaw, Merlyn, Myre, Orkwood, Saltcliffe, Volmark..

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

4 votes for Volmark. (Orkwood, Goodbrother, Botley, Saltcliffe)
2 votes for Saltcliffe (Volmark., Merlyn)
1 vote for Orkwood (Farwynd)

2 players have not voted: Harlaw, Myre.



Let me just clarify. I need to speek to my co-mod about the Alt speculation comments. We may have to mod kill for this offence.

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Saltcliffe' post='1569752' date='Oct 28 2008, 03.17']And why?
Well first off, I feel your unwillingness to get the lynch is odd, but the fact that afterwards you tried to blame others for the lynch not going through and then stating that a SK would have put the hammer down, strikes me as an attempt to appear PI.[/quote]You could have voted Merlyn when he was at 4 votes and you removed your vote. I know you may have had trouble later on, but at that point you could have placed a vote. Not like you thought Merlyn was innocent.
[quote name='House Saltcliffe' post='1569752' date='Oct 28 2008, 03.17']As to other suspects:
Goodbrother is the only other one that stands out to me, the problem though is that I can not figure out why, besides his 1st post, which struck me as trying to hard. He seems to be pretty damn clean.[/quote]Your other suspect is someone you think is innocent? Methinks you need to find some more suspects.

[House Dondarrion]

Right, so we have 5 hours left, 4 votes on Volmark, 2 on Saltcliffe and 1 on me.

Lets not allow this day to end lynchless too, please?

On that note, even after sleeping on it, I can't believe anyone thinks I contradicted myself by being willing to vote on someone thanks to a "Hey, look, he hasnt contributed. he's way under the radar" case, then claiming to have no read on them. In fact, having a good read would have contradicted it more. And why would I remember I'm suspicious of someone when I was never suspicious in itself, merely preferring to get rid of a non contributor than an active player?

But for two or three people to think it? I just don't get it.

Oh, and far, that agressive bit you mention where i demand he re-reads?
Re-read yourself where i say that and what he says. He puts a case together. I answer it, briefly looking at one part. I then come back and look at it properly and give an explanation. A fair while later, he comes in, ignores the fair explanation and quotes the origional "I can't remember that, maybe your right?", totally ignoring the "Hey, looked back and here's the explanation". He then justifies it with "Oh, hey, thats because it didn't convince me", but that's irrelevent. If you want to make a case based on someone's defense, it's poor form to only grab the quick reply defense and ignore the "Well, i've checked back and here's what happened" form. Someone skim reading through the day could very easily pick up on his post and believe that was the only defense i offered. That is a dirty trick, in my eyes. It's a way of twisting what's been said up to that point, making it appear my only defense was "oops, I can't remember that"... So yes, I am aggressive on that point. Was then, still am now. If he's a SK and wants to bump me off without wasting a night, fair play. But if that's innocent play then I'm far from happy, as that is first degree truth-twisting, something that can only harm the innocents unless he somehow knows that I'm guilty. As we don't have a finder (and as I'm not guilty), I'd say it's either sneaky killer play or very bad innocent play, play I'd really rather not see happen, let alone to me. So yes. I am aggressive about it.

Oh, and please quote me where I say it's a good case...

What i said was basically (paraphrasing from memory) that it's good that someone actually put a real case together on me rather than just saying "I have a gut feeling". It wasn't a good case, as some of the points contradicted themselves "Only attack weak, other than me. Only ever attack 1 at a time, except now your attacking me and someone else". Other points were easily explained once looked back on properly. All together it was a flimsy case built on bad points. HOWEVER, it was a good case as in it was put together well. It was based on logic and a reading of my gameplay. It pointed to specific things rather than vague wishy washy feelings. Structurally it was everything a case should be. Unfortunately, it was built out of snow in mid July, so just didn't stand the scrutiny of the light of day... Or at least I hope not, seeing as every point can be either explained or contradicts itself in very essence.

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1569765' date='Oct 28 2008, 03.53']Right, so we have 5 hours left, 4 votes on Volmark, 2 on Saltcliffe and 1 on me.

Lets not allow this day to end lynchless too, please?[/quote]It won't.

[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1569765' date='Oct 28 2008, 03.53']On that note, even after sleeping on it, I can't believe anyone thinks I contradicted myself by being willing to vote on someone thanks to a "Hey, look, he hasnt contributed. he's way under the radar" case, then claiming to have no read on them. In fact, having a good read would have contradicted it more. And why would I remember I'm suspicious of someone when I was never suspicious in itself, merely preferring to get rid of a non contributor than an active player?[/quote]You are really quite concerned about continuing to defend yourself even though you have 1 vote and clearly won't be lynched. Curious.

Here's what I read of your next part...
[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1569765' date='Oct 28 2008, 03.53']Oh, and far, that agressive bit you mention where i demand he re-reads?
Re-read yourself where i say blah blah blah....blah...blah...zzzzzzz......*abruptly wakes up* So yes. I am aggressive about it.[/quote]Ohhhkay, I'm glad that you don't feel compelled to defend yourself. Really, you seem quite confident and completely unconcerned.
[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1569765' date='Oct 28 2008, 03.53']Oh, and please quote me where I say it's a good case...[/quote]Real, good, whatever. Close enough
[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1569765' date='Oct 28 2008, 03.53']Rehasing blah blah blah not convincing anyone blah zzzzzzzzz....[/quote]You fit overdefensive behavior to a T at this point and you are behaving very out of character from what we've seen prior to the pressure Botley applied.

[House Dondarrion]

[quote name='House Farwynd' post='1569767' date='Oct 28 2008, 03.01']It won't.

You are really quite concerned about continuing to defend yourself even though you have 1 vote and clearly won't be lynched. Curious.

Here's what I read of your next part...
Ohhhkay, I'm glad that you don't feel compelled to defend yourself. Really, you seem quite confident and completely unconcerned.
Real, good, whatever. Close enough
You fit overdefensive behavior to a T at this point and you are behaving very out of character from what we've seen prior to the pressure Botley applied.[/quote]


A good case wouldn't provoke this sort of reaction. In fact, the bit you claim to have slept through is the very place where I explain exactly why I'm pissed off and over defensive about it. when something pisses me off, i get drawn into long, meaningless fights with people. It happens. I get pissed off at what's either a poor innocent play or great SK play. For some reason, the idea it's great SK play doesn't matter. I act out on the possibility it's bad innocent play, and I can over react. I can go to far. I'm fighting very hard to not put blinkers on and attack back. I'm sorely tempted to make a case that hinges on the idea that with a "mistake" like quoting my brief "i can't remember" defense and not the "right here's what happened one" we either have an innocent who's making mistakes so can die without too much harm, or a guilty. I won't make it because I do feel it's out of character so far, and don't feel that Botley is an overall harm to the team if innocent. However, it's taking all my self control to resist.

Interestingly, If i was guilty, self preservation would have taken hold, WAY above a worry that Team Innocent were being deceived, either by poor play or intentionally. I'm a much more controlled killer than I am a controlled innocent. It gives focus, and means I no longer have to worry about what's good for the team rather than just me.

Edit, yes, the last point is WIFOM. So shoot me!

Edit2: I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date! I'll keep reading if possible, but that all depends how busy I am at work. Speak to you all in around 9 hours.

[House Wythers]

[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1569769' date='Oct 28 2008, 04.14']A good case wouldn't provoke this sort of reaction.[/quote] The rambling makes for a very ineffective response that I try to read, but it just isn't put together particularly well (as you well know). The one thing consistent here is you've said a lot without saying much all game. 50+ posts and I can't think of more than one or two people you've seriously suspected (or given much evidence for why they are suspicious and others aren't). I don't love Botley, but damn there is a huge gap in substance.

[quote name='House Orkwood' post='1569765' date='Oct 28 2008, 03.53']Edit, yes, the last point is WIFOM. So shoot me![/quote]Bang. :)

[House Dondarrion]

[quote name='House Farwynd' post='1569773' date='Oct 28 2008, 03.20']I don't love Botley, but damn there is a huge gap in substance.[/quote]

In all honesty?

I am struggling with how to find killers when there are no partners. One SK is hard to spot... But two?

Usually i'd be looking it interactions right now, and lynch mobs, and who seems to know more than the rest of us, and why two people are almost acting like they can talk out of thread...

If you have any hints for me, please share!